2aHawaii
General Topics => General Discussion => Topic started by: BLKDRGN on August 16, 2013, 11:21:20 AM
-
I had this discussion before. Do you think it's necessary to have a license or permit to shoot? Just like a drivers license or permit for those under age. Do you think that everyone shooting should take a safety course just to shoot one? Right now anyone can shoot a gun from a certified gun owner but are they certified to teach safety to someone else? I'm sure there are a lot out there that let others borrow their guns while not being there at the range.
-
I had this discussion before. Do you think it's necessary to have a license or permit to shoot? Just like a drivers license or permit for those under age. Do you think that everyone shooting should take a safety course just to shoot one? Right now anyone can shoot a gun from a certified gun owner but are they certified to teach safety to someone else? I'm sure there are a lot out there that let others borrow their guns while not being there at the range.
It's legal to loan a long gun to a friend to take shooting or hunting. It's illegal to loan a handgun to anyone. The owner must be present to let someone else shoot their handgun.
As a responsible gun owner, you have to trust the individual to be safe with your gun. If you don't feel that way, ask the person to take a safety class or go practice with him before loaning it.
I personally don't allow anyone in my house unsupervised access to my guns unless they have taken a safety course and practiced shooting with me. I have as much responsibility as the state to ensure public safety where guns registered to me are involved, if not more.
Generally, no training course is required as long as the owner acts responsibly. This includes basic safety instruction for new shooters. It doesn't take a certificate to teach basic firearm safety, Demonstrate the same common safety principles you should be practicing yourself at the range.
IMHO, that is! :geekdanc:
-
So it's legal to let someone borrow a long gun. So if you let someone without a license to borrow you car is that fine? Are you sure they know the proper procedures and safety rules to handle the long gun? If you feel confident that they know their stuff but something happens who is liable? Can they said that you trained him so you are responsible? If he has his own certificate will they say he is liable for himself because he is certified? This is just a discussion and not necessarily my opinion.
-
I think its ridiculous that you need permission/a permit to exercise one of your rights (in regard to obtaining a firearm).
-
So it's legal to let someone borrow a long gun. So if you let someone without a license to borrow you car is that fine? Are you sure they know the proper procedures and safety rules to handle the long gun? If you feel confident that they know their stuff but something happens who is liable? Can they said that you trained him so you are responsible? If he has his own certificate will they say he is liable for himself because he is certified? This is just a discussion and not necessarily my opinion.
As long as the person you loan the gun to is legally able to own the gun themselves (not a felon, no history of mental illness, not addicted to drugs, etc.), then you have no legal liability if they use your gun improperly.
Again, it's your judgement. There are two scenarios: the borrower has an accident with your gun that injures/kills someone, or the borrower uses the gun to purposefully injure/kill someone. Which of these two situations do you think can be prevented with a formal, versus owner-taught, safety session?
-
So it's legal to let someone borrow a long gun. So if you let someone without a license to borrow you car is that fine? Are you sure they know the proper procedures and safety rules to handle the long gun? If you feel confident that they know their stuff but something happens who is liable? Can they said that you trained him so you are responsible? If he has his own certificate will they say he is liable for himself because he is certified? This is just a discussion and not necessarily my opinion.
Your argument is invalid. First, a license is required. To knowingly allow an unlicensed operator to have your vehicle makes the operator illegal and your act negligent.
Second, the fact someone passed a driving test in no way makes them a safer driver than a beginner. I see people on the street who are obviously 10,20, 30 or more years beyond the "Driver's Ed" age and are the most unsafe operators you'll ever see!
Again, it is YOUR judgement. Your brother has had 3 DUIs and just got his license reinstated. Your grandmother is scheduled for cataract surgery in a week. Your sister hasn't owned a car yet that she hasn't totaled.
All those people have a license. Is the license the only thing you will base your car-lending decision on?
-
i guess it comes down to liability. the car example is to show that it's illegal to operate a vehicle without a license. i'm thinking the reason is that it's a dangerous object that could hurt others. I think it's a money scheme like registration but that's just me. so why wouldn't we need a license to operate a gun when we do need one for a car? Why isn't it illegal to operate a gun without a license?
-
One's a right and the other is a privilege.
-
One's a right and the other is a privilege.
That's answer #1 (maybe 2 and 3 as well?).
The answer after that is: a car is more complicated, has more moving parts & controls, and can result in greater injury or loss of life in an accident than a gun. Unless you are purposefully shooting up a mall, the negligent discharge will usually be limited to one victim (injured or killed). A pickup truck or SUV can kill a whole bus full of kids in a single accident. Risk of dying in a vehicle crash is MUCH higher than dying from a gunshot, whether accidental or intentional.
Think about all the traffic laws and rules you have to learn. Traffic signs you must obey and what they mean, what to do if an emergency vehicle is behind you, how to proceed at a 4-way stop without a signal, when it's legal to pass another car, etc., etc.
There are a few basic safety rules for guns. Follow those, and everything else is practice and cleaning! Driving requires a license because the knowledge and skills needed to be safe necessitate a driver have appropriate training and hands-on experience. Using a gun is much safer statistically than driving.
There are states which issue CCW licenses that require proficiency testing with the firearm you intend to use. I'm okay with that. I don't want someone who never practices drawing down on a bad guy with me in the same room!!! But, for controlled situations like hunting or target shooting, no license is necessary to be safe.
-
^ ^ didn't you just join this month? you almost beating my post count :grrr: i got to step up my game
-
Should people take safety classes? - Absolutely
Should people be cerfified to shoot? - Probably, but that's a very slippery slope. Who makes the rules for what makes people certified? Very dangerous for something that is a Amendment.
-
i guess it comes down to liability. the car example is to show that it's illegal to operate a vehicle without a license. i'm thinking the reason is that it's a dangerous object that could hurt others. I think it's a money scheme like registration but that's just me. so why wouldn't we need a license to operate a gun when we do need one for a car? Why isn't it illegal to operate a gun without a license?
Driving is a priveledge, owning/shooting firearms is recognized as a Right in the Second Amendment.
I will counter as to why shouldn't we charge people with a fee to express their opinion? Also who determines if the opinion should be released? Finally who certifies that you are able to voice your opinion? Keep in mind that the Second Amendment isn't just about firearms ownership it's about providing a way to fight back against the Government should it stop working for its people.
-
Should people take safety classes? - Absolutely
Should people be cerfified to shoot? - Probably, but that's a very slippery slope. Who makes the rules for what makes people certified? Very dangerous for something that is a Amendment.
Maybe we should require certifications and public speaking classes before anyone is allowed to voice a political opinion in public? After all, rights are not absolute. The state/feds get to add restrictions so bad acts can't be protected under the Constitution.
That's when we have to ask, WHO gets to decide what a "bad act" is?
-
I don't think you should be forced to have some type of certification to own and shoot guns.
I do believe that people should train with firearms before buying them.
As stated earlier, once you start asking for certifications, you are asking some organization or the government to step in and control gun ownership.
This is not good.
I always take people shooting and instruct them on safe gun handling procedures before I let them touch loaded firearms.
I know there are a lot of idiots out there that own firearms but there are many more idiots that are having kids.
Should we start licensing that too? Have people get a permit to bear a child?
-
I don't think you should be forced to have some type of certification to own and shoot guns.
I do believe that people should train with firearms before buying them.
As stated earlier, once you start asking for certifications, you are asking some organization or the government to step in and control gun ownership.
This is not good.
I always take people shooting and instruct them on safe gun handling procedures before I let them touch loaded firearms.
I know there are a lot of idiots out there that own firearms but there are many more idiots that are having kids.
Should we start licensing that too? Have people get a permit to bear a child?
Well said :thumbsup:
Sorry Darmok and Japad @ Tanagra you sound anti
-
Well said :thumbsup:
Sorry Darmok and Japad @ Tanagra you sound anti
I am ... anti-TROLL
-
.
-
Should people take safety classes? - Absolutely
Should people be cerfified to shoot? - Probably, but that's a very slippery slope. Who makes the rules for what makes people certified? Very dangerous for something that is a Amendment.
+1, great post!
-
............Should we start licensing that too? Have people get a permit to bear a child?
A bit off topic, but those chronic welfare peeps with a bazillion kids?............yeah I think they should be required to get a permit.
-
How many have squeezed the trigger prior to learning how to multiply? If one needs to be certified to just squeeze the trigger, then the old past time of shooting the old 22 with the relative would be lost.
IMO, it would be beneficial for the gun owner to know when the prospect is ready to squeeze a trigger and send a round down range, much like how it has been for decades and for some families centuries.
-
The 4 Rules.
You should be able to pop quiz anyone at any range with the 4 rules.
If they can't answer, they're kicked off.
Hell my 8 year old could tell you and follow the 4 Rules ( He's 10 now, she's 13 now )
With one added ( although redundant ), as many people seem to forget,.....
Don't sweep the muzzle !
-
People often compare driver's licenses to firearm ownership. Aside from the privilege/right debate, it's noteworthy that there is no licensing, insurance, etc required to own a car. Those requirements only exist if you wish to operate your car on public roadways. If you're only going to use the vehicle on your own property, you don't need a license, registration, insurance, or anything else. So to answer OP's question, sure, I'm down with having training requirements for a gun license, but only if that license authorizes me to carry my gun in public, and only if it's shall-issue. Any licensing or training requirement for the simple act of owning a firearm is straight-up BS, and unConstitutional, regardless of what the old folks in black dresses on the Supreme Court have to say on the matter.
-
Like anything else, some training is necessary in order to operate something...learning the basics is a good start, and then with practice one can get good at it.
-
People often compare driver's licenses to firearm ownership. Aside from the privilege/right debate, it's noteworthy that there is no licensing, insurance, etc required to own a car. Those requirements only exist if you wish to operate your car on public roadways. If you're only going to use the vehicle on your own property, you don't need a license, registration, insurance, or anything else. So to answer OP's question, sure, I'm down with having training requirements for a gun license, but only if that license authorizes me to carry my gun in public, and only if it's shall-issue. Any licensing or training requirement for the simple act of owning a firearm is straight-up BS, and unConstitutional, regardless of what the old folks in black dresses on the Supreme Court have to say on the matter.
I agree with this. Just if, that the licensing is not ridiculously priced and qualification unreasonably difficult, I'd be down for that. Just look. They give a drivers license to damn near any joker that can move their foot and turn the wheel. And cars are orders of magnitude more dangerous than a trained responsible citizen with a loaded carry gun.
-
Take a look the dumbest things you seen at the range thread. How come there are incidents like those if they were properly trained by the owner? Did the owner forget a few safety rules? Was the owner not watching out? Did the owner even give safety lessons? What if the owner has an ainokea attitude? Should the person firing the gun have no safety training at all since it's legal? People are assuming that all owners are responsible.
-
Not assuming anything at all. Dumb things at the range, yes, seen it many times. That is why if i do see something, I say something. I don't cuss em out, unless they are flagging me bad, I just politely remind them on the rules. Most cases no problem.. and I'd hope someone would do the same for me if I do something stupid. I feel like I should be helpful and correct people so that thry can be safe and responsible. They might be new and not know better. If every one helped each other out in this way, I bet there would be less 'dumb' things occuring.
-
Also, IMHO, I think if we don't start doing this, with the major increases of new firearms owners, we are bound to see a major accident happen there. And that would NOT be a good thing if we want to see Kokohead sticking around for the future.
-
Take a look the dumbest things you seen at the range thread. How come there are incidents like those if they were properly trained by the owner? Did the owner forget a few safety rules? Was the owner not watching out? Did the owner even give safety lessons? What if the owner has an ainokea attitude? Should the person firing the gun have no safety training at all since it's legal? People are assuming that all owners are responsible.
Because human beings are dangerous idiots. Do you really think a government mandate will fix that? The government teaches our kids how to safely use their private parts, and teen pregnancy becomes an epidemic. The government mandates and provides free training in reading, writing, and 'rithmetic--yet the next generation are functionally illiterate morons. Read Trayvon Martin's text logs if you don't believe me. And math? Forget advanced math, most kids I see are absolutely flabbergasted if the total at McDonald's comes out to $4.03 and you hand them a five dollar bill and three pennies. I can't tell you how many times I've had someone almost refuse to take the pennies because they can't get past the fact that the fiver is enough to cover it already.
The point is, the government is not (or should not be) allowed to place road blocks on the exercise of a human right, and even if they did, I submit to you that they would probably make the problem worse. Remember when King Barry was going to get everyone cheap health insurance?
-
Take a look the dumbest things you seen at the range thread. How come there are incidents like those if they were properly trained by the owner? Did the owner forget a few safety rules? Was the owner not watching out? Did the owner even give safety lessons? What if the owner has an ainokea attitude? Should the person firing the gun have no safety training at all since it's legal? People are assuming that all owners are responsible.
What's kind of funny is that hunter ed qualifies; if the "purpose" is to make sure people know how to use guns, I don't see why it would.
-
I will counter as to why shouldn't we charge people with a fee to express their opinion? Also who determines if the opinion should be released? Finally who certifies that you are able to voice your opinion? Keep in mind that the Second Amendment isn't just about firearms ownership it's about providing a way to fight back against the Government should it stop working for its people.
In the spirit of arguing, people are actually charged a fee to express their opinions; most of them require and get least 8-12 years of training to express that opinion, they are certified by many agencies, both state and local in doing so. Think about it!
-
Because the ability to defend yourself, and your friends and community, is so integral and vital to a state of freedom, you will find that anything that compromises that ability, is strictly speaking, going against liberty.
That is not an opinion, it is simply sheer logic, and would be the basis upon which to compare measures that restrict that freedom.
And in a sense, the less there is of liberty, the less there is of humanity.
To give another example, just to illustrate, it is possible for humans to kill each other by biting each others' throats and ripping eyeballs out with fingers, etc. or even just punching and kicking each other with hands and feet. A large man can kill a child with a kick (i.e., "natural weapons").
I am not being facetious, but using these examples to highlight what we are talking about really.
-
............Hell my 8 year old could tell you and follow the 4 Rules ( He's 10 now, she's 13 now ) ...............
The 4 rules?
1. Mommy and Daddy are always rigt.
2. Do what Mommy and Daddy tell you.
3. Don't eat rocks and dirt.
4. If you know what's good for you don't come into Mommy & Daddy's room when the door is closed because you will regret it for the rest of your life.
-
In the spirit of arguing, people are actually charged a fee to express their opinions; most of them require and get least 8-12 years of training to express that opinion, they are certified by many agencies, both state and local in doing so. Think about it!
You can express your opinion once you hit 18, but you can only express your opinion on certain matters if you are 21 years old.
-
The 4 rules?
1. Mommy and Daddy are always rigt.
2. Do what Mommy and Daddy tell you.
3. Don't eat rocks and dirt.
4. If you know what's good for you don't come into Mommy & Daddy's room when the door is closed because you will regret it for the rest of your life.
Damnit ! I shoulda taught them those 4 rules.
If they followed those 4 rules like they follow the 4 rules of handling a firearm, life would much easier. ;D
-
The 4 rules?
1. Mommy and Daddy are always rigt.
2. Do what Mommy and Daddy tell you.
3. Don't eat rocks and dirt.
4. If you know what's good for you don't come into Mommy & Daddy's room when the door is closed because you will regret it for the rest of your life.
[/quote]
:thumbsup:good one!
-
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b69_1376878619 (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b69_1376878619)
this thread made me think of this....
-
In the spirit of arguing, people are actually charged a fee to express their opinions; most of them require and get least 8-12 years of training to express that opinion, they are certified by many agencies, both state and local in doing so. Think about it!
Education makes the exercise of your free speech rights more effective, but is not a prerequisite for having or expressing them. Children as young as five can and do hold signs at rallies and protests, with no background check, no education, no nothing. I'll go you one better, though: if you want everyone to be safer with firearms, don't start enacting requirements that people go out and spend their own time and money to get trained--start (or more correctly resume) teaching firearm safety and marksmanship as part of the public school curriculum.