Multiple Deaths in San Bernardino, Calif., Mass Shooting
12-03-2015, 04:04 PM
#32
If in doubt, FLAT OUT
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Nor Cal SJ
Posts: 7,035
Car Info: 2010 Hatch, 2011 Sedan
I have the study materials in my office. But I don't think they're in depth enough. You read these materials and take a test.
I think they should have even minimally say an 8 hr training course. Proper handling. Cleaning. Maintenance. Storage. Loading. Firing... etc... maybe even 12 hours. 2 6 hour days.
Would it be expensive... sure but it's not something that the government/tax payer should have to pay. You want to buy a handgun... pay $50 or $100 for the course. Sell packages where you can get discounts on advanced certifications. Maybe those advanced certifications are part of the building blocks towards get a concealed permit or the what not.
I think they should have even minimally say an 8 hr training course. Proper handling. Cleaning. Maintenance. Storage. Loading. Firing... etc... maybe even 12 hours. 2 6 hour days.
Would it be expensive... sure but it's not something that the government/tax payer should have to pay. You want to buy a handgun... pay $50 or $100 for the course. Sell packages where you can get discounts on advanced certifications. Maybe those advanced certifications are part of the building blocks towards get a concealed permit or the what not.
Cross point - there are a lot of people out there who should not be driving. Can't get down the street without doing something dumb with no concept of consequence, both those who simply don't care and those who are too passive to make the effort. These people also should not have firearms, because it is just as much a responsibility to be used properly. Something that has to be taken very seriously. So no, I don't think everyone should have firearms. Or licenses...
Last edited by 04GG; 12-03-2015 at 04:08 PM.
12-03-2015, 06:26 PM
#33
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In Mother Russia...
Posts: 4,024
Car Info: ...zeh car drives you!
That basically IS what the 2 day class is at one of the local shops here. Basic handling, load/unload and range time with both pistol and revolver. Your legal responsibilities, safety, storage, etc... It is recommended, not required though. I think it was $150 for 3 days - the third day was just range time with a variety of different firearms.
Cross point - there are a lot of people out there who should not be driving. Can't get down the street without doing something dumb with no concept of consequence, both those who simply don't care and those who are too passive to make the effort. These people also should not have firearms, because it is just as much a responsibility to be used properly. Something that has to be taken very seriously. So no, I don't think everyone should have firearms. Or licenses...
Cross point - there are a lot of people out there who should not be driving. Can't get down the street without doing something dumb with no concept of consequence, both those who simply don't care and those who are too passive to make the effort. These people also should not have firearms, because it is just as much a responsibility to be used properly. Something that has to be taken very seriously. So no, I don't think everyone should have firearms. Or licenses...
HOW "responsible" is defined and WHO is doing the defining will ALWAYS be the break down points. E.I. Obama thinks it is very responsible for no one to have firearms (and probably any self protection) because 1984. On the other hand, Wayne LaPierre thinks it is only responsible for everyone to have a firearm and self protection also because 1984.
Even educational requirements can be turned negative and made as absolute deterrent again ownership...let's say, a mandatory 4 year "gun degree" (that happens to cost $100,000), or mandatory 2 year re-certification (a la smog check that cost $10,000) and/or mandatory 2 year service in the military (which a lot of other countries have). All of which is exactly why someone had the foresight to write the Amendment as broadly as they did in order to make infringement as impossible as possible.
Cars and firearms analogizes are also as different as they are similar. Driving and vehicle ownership is a huge luxury, convenience and privilege. Firearm ownership is a Constitutional and citizenship birth right for self protection and check against tyrannical government.
So I cannot say that I disagree with concept of certain people not being allowed to drive or be anywhere near a firearm (HUGE) BUT to implement and enforce that in an objective non biased neutral ground proactive/preemptive manner is just flat out impossible and inconceivable (at least give our current state of evolution).
Last edited by LxJLthr; 12-03-2015 at 06:46 PM.
12-03-2015, 08:33 PM
#34
That basically IS what the 2 day class is at one of the local shops here. Basic handling, load/unload and range time with both pistol and revolver. Your legal responsibilities, safety, storage, etc... It is recommended, not required though. I think it was $150 for 3 days - the third day was just range time with a variety of different firearms.
Cross point - there are a lot of people out there who should not be driving. Can't get down the street without doing something dumb with no concept of consequence, both those who simply don't care and those who are too passive to make the effort. These people also should not have firearms, because it is just as much a responsibility to be used properly. Something that has to be taken very seriously. So no, I don't think everyone should have firearms. Or licenses...
Cross point - there are a lot of people out there who should not be driving. Can't get down the street without doing something dumb with no concept of consequence, both those who simply don't care and those who are too passive to make the effort. These people also should not have firearms, because it is just as much a responsibility to be used properly. Something that has to be taken very seriously. So no, I don't think everyone should have firearms. Or licenses...
Is it required?
12-04-2015, 08:24 AM
#36
If in doubt, FLAT OUT
iTrader: (33)
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Nor Cal SJ
Posts: 7,035
Car Info: 2010 Hatch, 2011 Sedan
To get the certificate? No. It should be IMO.
Not to get too deep into that one, you know where I'm coming from and I agree it is a can of worms to open and from which perspective you look at it.
Politicians to me see it as a way to advance their careers - most of them probably don't actually care about the issue, only what it will do for them. They make big public statements about it because people expect them to.
BOTH sides use propaganda to further their position/agenda and I don't like that. I know which side I sit on, but I don't support everything that is said by either. Anti-firearm side is irrational and uneducated about the firearms and the situation in general. Pro side calls on things that are true, but not necessarily always beneficial to everyone.
Car analogy was to make the point that licensing does not mean "educated" or even skilled operators, nor does it actually prepare them for anything. Any idiot can get a license.
To play the devil's advocate
HOW "responsible" is defined and WHO is doing the defining will ALWAYS be the break down points. E.I. Obama thinks it is very responsible for no one to have firearms (and probably any self protection) because 1984. On the other hand, Wayne LaPierre thinks it is only responsible for everyone to have a firearm and self protection also because 1984.
Even educational requirements can be turned negative and made as absolute deterrent again ownership...let's say, a mandatory 4 year "gun degree" (that happens to cost $100,000), or mandatory 2 year re-certification (a la smog check that cost $10,000) and/or mandatory 2 year service in the military (which a lot of other countries have). All of which is exactly why someone had the foresight to write the Amendment as broadly as they did in order to make infringement as impossible as possible.
Cars and firearms analogizes are also as different as they are similar. Driving and vehicle ownership is a huge luxury, convenience and privilege. Firearm ownership is a Constitutional and citizenship birth right for self protection and check against tyrannical government.
So I cannot say that I disagree with concept of certain people not being allowed to drive or be anywhere near a firearm (HUGE) BUT to implement and enforce that in an objective non biased neutral ground proactive/preemptive manner is just flat out impossible and inconceivable (at least give our current state of evolution).
HOW "responsible" is defined and WHO is doing the defining will ALWAYS be the break down points. E.I. Obama thinks it is very responsible for no one to have firearms (and probably any self protection) because 1984. On the other hand, Wayne LaPierre thinks it is only responsible for everyone to have a firearm and self protection also because 1984.
Even educational requirements can be turned negative and made as absolute deterrent again ownership...let's say, a mandatory 4 year "gun degree" (that happens to cost $100,000), or mandatory 2 year re-certification (a la smog check that cost $10,000) and/or mandatory 2 year service in the military (which a lot of other countries have). All of which is exactly why someone had the foresight to write the Amendment as broadly as they did in order to make infringement as impossible as possible.
Cars and firearms analogizes are also as different as they are similar. Driving and vehicle ownership is a huge luxury, convenience and privilege. Firearm ownership is a Constitutional and citizenship birth right for self protection and check against tyrannical government.
So I cannot say that I disagree with concept of certain people not being allowed to drive or be anywhere near a firearm (HUGE) BUT to implement and enforce that in an objective non biased neutral ground proactive/preemptive manner is just flat out impossible and inconceivable (at least give our current state of evolution).
Politicians to me see it as a way to advance their careers - most of them probably don't actually care about the issue, only what it will do for them. They make big public statements about it because people expect them to.
BOTH sides use propaganda to further their position/agenda and I don't like that. I know which side I sit on, but I don't support everything that is said by either. Anti-firearm side is irrational and uneducated about the firearms and the situation in general. Pro side calls on things that are true, but not necessarily always beneficial to everyone.
Car analogy was to make the point that licensing does not mean "educated" or even skilled operators, nor does it actually prepare them for anything. Any idiot can get a license.
Last edited by 04GG; 12-04-2015 at 08:33 AM.
12-04-2015, 09:19 AM
#37
Thread Starter
iTrader: (12)
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: In Mother Russia...
Posts: 4,024
Car Info: ...zeh car drives you!
Not to get too deep into that one, you know where I'm coming from and I agree it is a can of worms to open and from which perspective you look at it.
Politicians to me see it as a way to advance their careers - most of them probably don't actually care about the issue, only what it will do for them. They make big public statements about it because people expect them to.
BOTH sides use propaganda to further their position/agenda and I don't like that. I know which side I sit on, but I don't support everything that is said by either. Anti-firearm side is irrational and uneducated about the firearms and the situation in general. Pro side calls on things that are true, but not necessarily always beneficial to everyone.
Car analogy was to make the point that licensing does not mean "educated" or even skilled operators, nor does it actually prepare them for anything. Any idiot can get a license.
Politicians to me see it as a way to advance their careers - most of them probably don't actually care about the issue, only what it will do for them. They make big public statements about it because people expect them to.
BOTH sides use propaganda to further their position/agenda and I don't like that. I know which side I sit on, but I don't support everything that is said by either. Anti-firearm side is irrational and uneducated about the firearms and the situation in general. Pro side calls on things that are true, but not necessarily always beneficial to everyone.
Car analogy was to make the point that licensing does not mean "educated" or even skilled operators, nor does it actually prepare them for anything. Any idiot can get a license.
I am actually surprised this thread stayed civil. 
12-04-2015, 11:15 AM
#40
That's what people can't seem to figure out. Passing laws to restrict gun ownership only takes guns out of the hands of rational law abiding citizen.
Crazy people and/or criminals will find a way to get what they need or use something else to get the job done...
I am all for security checks when purchasing fire arms. I'm all for waiting periods. If you just want a gun because you like guns or need a hunting rifle or some crap you should have no problems waiting.
Instead of banning everything that's big and black maybe we should teach people how to properly care for and handle fire arms. Maybe you should have to take a safety course before purchasing a fire arm and have to take refreshers every now and again like CPR.
I'm cool with that. I have a shot gun in my house. Only I can reach it and only I know where it's at. I will not put guns anywhere near anyone else in my family until they have all bee educated and are old enough to understand what they're for.
It's finding that balance that we need to do. Just banning everything and passing more useless legislature is pointless. It's just allowing the government farther and farther into our lives where they do not belong.
Crazy people and/or criminals will find a way to get what they need or use something else to get the job done...
I am all for security checks when purchasing fire arms. I'm all for waiting periods. If you just want a gun because you like guns or need a hunting rifle or some crap you should have no problems waiting.
Instead of banning everything that's big and black maybe we should teach people how to properly care for and handle fire arms. Maybe you should have to take a safety course before purchasing a fire arm and have to take refreshers every now and again like CPR.
I'm cool with that. I have a shot gun in my house. Only I can reach it and only I know where it's at. I will not put guns anywhere near anyone else in my family until they have all bee educated and are old enough to understand what they're for.
It's finding that balance that we need to do. Just banning everything and passing more useless legislature is pointless. It's just allowing the government farther and farther into our lives where they do not belong.
I think the problem is there is a big divide between extreme positions on either side. Extreme liberals call for NO GUNS EVER and extreme conservatives call for ALL GUNS RIGHT NOW.
As is usually the case, the answer is in the middle. Allow legal purchase of most guns out there, but put in place strict background checks, strict registration, mandatory mental health evaluations, and advanced safety and use training and licensing/testing systems (most important). Also close stupid loopholes like gun shows and online sales that completely get around the systems in place.
Its simple... you want to own a piece of very deadly equipment, go through the steps to prove you are mentally healthy, go through real training on how to safely use and keep your firearm, and prove your training via regular testing. We require most of this to be able to drive a car for ****s sake!
Put a real system in place like this and it makes it hard for either extreme to logically argue against it.
-- Ed
12-04-2015, 11:21 AM
#41
Registered User
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: North Bay
Posts: 449
Car Info: 2012 PBP STI
I always wonder why this place or that place. Are the people that do these things trying to instill fear of certain kinds of places in the public and for what purpose? There are much simpler ways to kill way more people, so why choose guns and why that place? Greatest loss of life can't be the purpose, so there must be something else going on. I'm always curious what the point is from their perspective.
12-04-2015, 11:26 AM
#42
That basically IS what the 2 day class is at one of the local shops here. Basic handling, load/unload and range time with both pistol and revolver. Your legal responsibilities, safety, storage, etc... It is recommended, not required though. I think it was $150 for 3 days - the third day was just range time with a variety of different firearms.
One thing I see mostly missing from this discussion is a real mental health evaluation, which in the end is one of the most important factors. Hell, maybe even some kind of intelligence/rationality test?
-- Ed
12-04-2015, 12:55 PM
#44
Registered User
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Bay Area
Posts: 2,572
Car Info: 2006 STI
There was also a mass shooting prior to this and the Georgia one. It occurred on 11/22/15 in New Orleans at a playground. Many People didn't even know about it and those who did said they only saw mention of it on one or two sources. I had to search to find it unlike this shooting that is plasters front page all over media outlets.
Has anyone else noticed that during his time in office there have been more tragic/senseless mass murder than prior presidents? It's something like 162 (not sure if the past 3 events are included in that total either) the second closest was Clinton with 32, 30 occurred during bush term. from 32 to 162 That's insane.
I would like to see the fingerprint trigger lock refined and come into effect. Mental stability tests are a great idea and should be implemented to get a drivers license as well and people should have to take mandatory annual re testing.
Has anyone else noticed that during his time in office there have been more tragic/senseless mass murder than prior presidents? It's something like 162 (not sure if the past 3 events are included in that total either) the second closest was Clinton with 32, 30 occurred during bush term. from 32 to 162 That's insane.
I would like to see the fingerprint trigger lock refined and come into effect. Mental stability tests are a great idea and should be implemented to get a drivers license as well and people should have to take mandatory annual re testing.