9 ms·

And such measures can be pretty useless and only amount to rent-seeking. I did hunter education in Colorado with the Makhaira group. Some students were unable t

by macksd 5y ago

And such measures can be pretty useless and only amount to rent-seeking. I did hunter education in Colorado with the Makhaira group. Some students were unable to hit an 8.5x11 sheet of paper with a .22 bolt-action rifle at a distance of 5 yards (which is absolutely pathetic for someone who thinks they can hit a deer at even 100 yards with a hunting rifle). These individuals were granted their credentials because they failed this exercise while not breaking any of the gun safety rules (I'm not sure how you can say that you can fire a gun safely when you're that inaccurate, but that's my point).

_jal 5y ago
Licensing is only tangentially about competence. The point is to have a revokable permission.
- dylan604 5y ago
  How many people continue to drive a car after having their license revoked? When they do, they are capable of far greater damage than a revoked drove license. People that have to respect for the law are not going to follow the law. How many criminals carry weapons even though there are laws? The point of laws are to give guidance to know what is/isn't allowed, and to allow for punishiment when broken.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ampdepolymerase 5y ago
  Selective enforcement of rules and legal discretion ought to be banned through constitutional amendment.
phkahler 5y ago
>> And such measures can be pretty useless and only amount to rent-seeking. I did hunter education in Colorado with the Makhaira group. Some students were unable to hit an 8.5x11 sheet of paper with a .22 bolt-action rifle at a distance of 5 yards (which is absolutely pathetic for someone who thinks they can hit a deer at even 100 yards with a hunting rifle). These individuals were granted their credentials because they failed this exercise while not breaking any of the gun safety rules Gun safety is the point, not marksmanship. In this case the point is safe drone use. There have been incidents of people flying drones in controlled airspace around airports, which is dangerous. The FAA doesn't give a shit about some dude and his drone, they care about the safety of the general public. A simple course like this will cut down on the number of people doing things that endanger others.
- cameronh90 5y ago
  At a certain point, inability to hit a target becomes a safety issue.
  - lootsauce 5y ago
    You don't shoot in any direction where missing the target is a problem. If there a a house near-by or a busy road and the path of a bullet not hitting its target may encroach that space you don't even point your gun let alone shoot. For deer hunting an elevated position in a stand makes it more likely you see a deer but also makes it far less likely that a miss will go somewhere you don't want.
    - craftinator 5y ago
      > You don't shoot in any direction where missing the target is a problem. Hoping that the class included that nugget of wisdom. That being said, being wildly inaccurate with a hunting rifle isn't usually a problem, especially if the sights are calibrated correctly. A handgun however, is pretty dangerous when you don't know how to aim it.
      - GeneralAntilles 5y ago
        It's one of the core gun safety bullet points, so any class covering gun safety certainly should have. . . .
    - ctdonath 5y ago
      Missing by a couple minutes of angle is understandable, and factored into safe use. “Unable to hit the broad side of a barn” (American aphorism) isn’t a miss, it’s functional/cognitive inability to abide by safety rules.
cogman10 5y ago
Usually, these aren't expensive classes nor is the licensing expensive. And generally, those funds are earmarked towards paying either for the education or enforcement. As for the actual shooting education... I mean, I think I care more about someone being safe with a gun than I care about them being a good shot. Missing the side of the barn matters less than making sure someone's not standing next to the barn when you are shooting.
- macksd 5y ago
  My point was more that the class was just plain garbage and that's the most objective measure of how terrible it was that I can think of. There were people repeatedly and absent-mindedly pointing rifles at the person next to them. You know why they still got the hunter's safety card? Because they didn't do it on their last shot, so obviously they learned their lesson. The in-person instruction was also just a slide-show of the instructor's previous hunting trip. That said, I stand by my suggestion that an inability to hit a standard sheet of paper at 5 yards with a training rifle is bad enough to qualify as a safety issue. Doing the math here, these people would be unable to hit a 60' target at typical deer ranges in my state. You can't be sure of your target and what's behind it at that point, and that's one of the 4 fundamental rules of gun safety. You should be measuring your ability to hit the vital organs of an animal in a low number of minutes of angle - so we're talking INCHES at the same ranges. If you can't do that you have no business hunting. If you're off by 60' you're just plain being reckless.
dv_dt 5y ago
Considering the number of drone flying incidents that ground fire fighting equipment, or cause concerns around airports - I think the drone operation education is one of the cheaper ways to reduce incidents
triceratops 5y ago
> I'm not sure how you can say that you can fire a gun safely when you're that inaccurate, Isn't "be aware of what's behind your target" one of the rules of gun safety?
- AuryGlenz 5y ago
  If your aim is off enough that could be an issue. You’ll never know what’s beyond your sight, so if your aim is too high… There are places on my property I could use for inexperienced shooters, and those would be different from places I could use. My friend brings people to his family’s gravel pit for that reason - huge “walls” when you’re in the pit.
barbazoo 5y ago
How would a free 30 minute class considered "rent-seeking"?
ska 5y ago
Was the certificate on marksmanship, or safe handling of a firearm? Firing a weapon inaccurately in the correct general direction isn't high risk, this isn't how people get hurt in hunting accidents. You shouldn't even have your rifle up (let alone firing) at all unless you have a clear idea of what will happen when you miss, and a good view of the field. I doubt the licensing body gives any thought to your probability of a successful hunt.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I'd argue that the point isn't to enable rent seeking (though some parties definitely benefit from that), the point is to add bureaucratic red tape to discourage the activity. >I'm not sure how you can say that you can fire a gun safely when you're that inaccurate, but that's my point The NYPD probably has a well practiced answer to this question.
ctdonath 5y ago
For all those disagreeing, I’ll agree with you. Inability to hit a large target at very close range belies cognitive inability to perform safely. Knowing rules of the road doesn’t matter if you can’t drive on the road for a mere 100 feet without going over the curb. That said, methinks this FAA training is abusing rent-seeking to harass & discourage small drone use (just as most legally obligated “gun safety” courses are designed to hinder ownership via imposing undue cost & time burdens). [LFI-IV][Gunsite/Cooper]

by macksd 5y ago

_jal 5y ago

Licensing is only tangentially about competence. The point is to have a revokable permission.

dylan604 5y ago
How many people continue to drive a car after having their license revoked? When they do, they are capable of far greater damage than a revoked drove license. People that have to respect for the law are not going to follow the law. How many criminals carry weapons even though there are laws? The point of laws are to give guidance to know what is/isn't allowed, and to allow for punishiment when broken.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ampdepolymerase 5y ago
Selective enforcement of rules and legal discretion ought to be banned through constitutional amendment.

phkahler 5y ago

>> And such measures can be pretty useless and only amount to rent-seeking. I did hunter education in Colorado with the Makhaira group. Some students were unable to hit an 8.5x11 sheet of paper with a .22 bolt-action rifle at a distance of 5 yards (which is absolutely pathetic for someone who thinks they can hit a deer at even 100 yards with a hunting rifle). These individuals were granted their credentials because they failed this exercise while not breaking any of the gun safety rules Gun safety is the point, not marksmanship. In this case the point is safe drone use. There have been incidents of people flying drones in controlled airspace around airports, which is dangerous. The FAA doesn't give a shit about some dude and his drone, they care about the safety of the general public. A simple course like this will cut down on the number of people doing things that endanger others.

cameronh90 5y ago
At a certain point, inability to hit a target becomes a safety issue.
- lootsauce 5y ago
  You don't shoot in any direction where missing the target is a problem. If there a a house near-by or a busy road and the path of a bullet not hitting its target may encroach that space you don't even point your gun let alone shoot. For deer hunting an elevated position in a stand makes it more likely you see a deer but also makes it far less likely that a miss will go somewhere you don't want.
  - craftinator 5y ago
    > You don't shoot in any direction where missing the target is a problem. Hoping that the class included that nugget of wisdom. That being said, being wildly inaccurate with a hunting rifle isn't usually a problem, especially if the sights are calibrated correctly. A handgun however, is pretty dangerous when you don't know how to aim it.
    - GeneralAntilles 5y ago
      It's one of the core gun safety bullet points, so any class covering gun safety certainly should have. . . .
  - ctdonath 5y ago
    Missing by a couple minutes of angle is understandable, and factored into safe use. “Unable to hit the broad side of a barn” (American aphorism) isn’t a miss, it’s functional/cognitive inability to abide by safety rules.

cogman10 5y ago

Usually, these aren't expensive classes nor is the licensing expensive. And generally, those funds are earmarked towards paying either for the education or enforcement. As for the actual shooting education... I mean, I think I care more about someone being safe with a gun than I care about them being a good shot. Missing the side of the barn matters less than making sure someone's not standing next to the barn when you are shooting.

macksd 5y ago
My point was more that the class was just plain garbage and that's the most objective measure of how terrible it was that I can think of. There were people repeatedly and absent-mindedly pointing rifles at the person next to them. You know why they still got the hunter's safety card? Because they didn't do it on their last shot, so obviously they learned their lesson. The in-person instruction was also just a slide-show of the instructor's previous hunting trip. That said, I stand by my suggestion that an inability to hit a standard sheet of paper at 5 yards with a training rifle is bad enough to qualify as a safety issue. Doing the math here, these people would be unable to hit a 60' target at typical deer ranges in my state. You can't be sure of your target and what's behind it at that point, and that's one of the 4 fundamental rules of gun safety. You should be measuring your ability to hit the vital organs of an animal in a low number of minutes of angle - so we're talking INCHES at the same ranges. If you can't do that you have no business hunting. If you're off by 60' you're just plain being reckless.

dv_dt 5y ago

Considering the number of drone flying incidents that ground fire fighting equipment, or cause concerns around airports - I think the drone operation education is one of the cheaper ways to reduce incidents

triceratops 5y ago

> I'm not sure how you can say that you can fire a gun safely when you're that inaccurate, Isn't "be aware of what's behind your target" one of the rules of gun safety?

AuryGlenz 5y ago
If your aim is off enough that could be an issue. You’ll never know what’s beyond your sight, so if your aim is too high… There are places on my property I could use for inexperienced shooters, and those would be different from places I could use. My friend brings people to his family’s gravel pit for that reason - huge “walls” when you’re in the pit.

barbazoo 5y ago

How would a free 30 minute class considered "rent-seeking"?

ska 5y ago

Was the certificate on marksmanship, or safe handling of a firearm? Firing a weapon inaccurately in the correct general direction isn't high risk, this isn't how people get hurt in hunting accidents. You shouldn't even have your rifle up (let alone firing) at all unless you have a clear idea of what will happen when you miss, and a good view of the field. I doubt the licensing body gives any thought to your probability of a successful hunt.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

I'd argue that the point isn't to enable rent seeking (though some parties definitely benefit from that), the point is to add bureaucratic red tape to discourage the activity. >I'm not sure how you can say that you can fire a gun safely when you're that inaccurate, but that's my point The NYPD probably has a well practiced answer to this question.

ctdonath 5y ago

For all those disagreeing, I’ll agree with you. Inability to hit a large target at very close range belies cognitive inability to perform safely. Knowing rules of the road doesn’t matter if you can’t drive on the road for a mere 100 feet without going over the curb. That said, methinks this FAA training is abusing rent-seeking to harass & discourage small drone use (just as most legally obligated “gun safety” courses are designed to hinder ownership via imposing undue cost & time burdens). [LFI-IV][Gunsite/Cooper]