What age is too young for a child to learn to use a gun?

[Azazello1313]

Of course there is, the SC just stated explicitly, that the fundamental right pertaining to the second amendment deals with defense of the home, and that certain restriction on guns are necessary and proper. Your assertion of the scope of the second amendment is exagerrated.

 

yeah, let's try and read the bill of rights as narrowly as humanly possible so that our government can boss people around more

[Jimmy Neutron]

yeah, let's try and read the bill of rights as narrowly as humanly possible so that our government can boss people around more

 

Exactly. If this were about free speech or free press, I doubt we'd be hearing the same cry for "reasonable limits."

[Azazello1313]

Exactly. If this were about free speech or free press, I doubt we'd be hearing the same cry for "reasonable limits."

 

maybe, but what side of the spectrum to campus speech codes and the "fairness doctrine" come from?

[billay]

yeah, let's try and read the bill of rights as narrowly as humanly possible so that our government can boss people around more

You say that as though it's my own interpretation.

 

Besides, claiming that such an interpretaion of the Second Amendment is "as narrow as humanly possible" in the wake of McDonald and Heller is laughable.

[Caveman_Nick]

caveman, do you think people actually actively seek these courses out? Or "assume" like the father that was killed, that they know enough to do it on their own? People that can handle guns already wouldnt have to worry if they can opt out and take the final exam and pass it. It is designed for the first time gun purchaser/ kid learning how to shoot.

 

I know for a fact that they do. I am certified to teach several of them.

 

Either NRA Basic Pistol or NRA Home Firearms Safety covers permitting needs in every state that requires a class for a permit. There is no reason to take NRA Basic Rifle or NRA Basic Shotgun other than to learn about rifles and shotguns. But people take these courses all the time.

[Azazello1313]

You say that as though it's my own interpretation.

 

Besides, claiming that such an interpretaion of the Second Amendment is "as narrow as humanly possible" in the wake of McDonald and Heller is laughable.

 

so you're saying you're NOT an advocate of a narrow reading of the second amendment?

[billay]

so you're saying you're NOT an advocate of a narrow reading of the second amendment?

Can you point out where in this thread my interpretation of the second amendment was inquired about, asserted, or generally discussed at all?

[bpwallace49]

Exactly. If this were about free speech or free press, I doubt we'd be hearing the same cry for "reasonable limits."

 

You mean like the FCC or the use of obsenities?

 

Whether you like it or not, there are restrictions on free speech, so you may want to try another comparison.

[bpwallace49]

I know for a fact that they do. I am certified to teach several of them.

 

Either NRA Basic Pistol or NRA Home Firearms Safety covers permitting needs in every state that requires a class for a permit. There is no reason to take NRA Basic Rifle or NRA Basic Shotgun other than to learn about rifles and shotguns. But people take these courses all the time.

 

That is great! But it doesnt address the fact that is a course was required by a 3rd party, then maybe a 7 year old wouldnt have accidently killed his father. People do take the couses all the time. RESPONSIBLE gun owners. The idea is designed to protect the RESPONSIBLE gun owners by reducing the amount of IRRESPONSIBLE gun owners through education.

[Big John]

You mean like the FCC or the use of obsenities?

Appeals court strikes that down.

 

But the slippery slope is still very slippery with rights being taken away all the time.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

yeah, let's try and read the bill of rights as narrowly as humanly possible so that our government can boss people around more

 

IMO an individuals rights in some cases can and should be limited in defense of the common good, ie public safety. Go ahead and carry a gun, but society has a right to place common sense restrictions on how you procure them, when and where you can use them, etc. Isn't the whole point of organizing a society into a formal nation state predicated on balancing individual rights with societal protections?

[Jimmy Neutron]

You mean like the FCC or the use of obsenities?

 

Whether you like it or not, there are restrictions on free speech, so you may want to try another comparison.

 

Not many. I can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but I can say pretty much anything I want without fear of being thrown in jail. If I had a printing press, I could write and disseminate almost anything I want. I could live with similar limited restrictions on gun rights - "Jimmy, you can't have the suitcase nukes you applied for." OK - fine.

 

On a tangent - has anyone noticed a more free filter on prime time tv programming in the last few months? One of the characters said "dick" on SVU last night. New one one me... I think I heard "diaper dirt" on another program last week...

[bpwallace49]

Not many. I can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but I can say pretty much anything I want without fear of being thrown in jail. If I had a printing press, I could write and disseminate almost anything I want. I could live with similar limited restrictions on gun rights - "Jimmy, you can't have the suitcase nukes you applied for." OK - fine.

 

On a tangent - has anyone noticed a more free filter on prime time tv programming in the last few months? One of the characters said "dick" on SVU last night. New one one me... I think I heard "diaper dirt" on another program last week...

 

But that is the point. There ARE restrictions. And speaking from a gun owner since forever and from a military family, I would have ZERO issue with having a mandatory safety course required before you buy a gun administered by a 3rd party. Hell, you need to take Hunetrs Safety courses which are pretty much the same thing, why not extend that one logical step further for safety issues? (I patiently await the barrage of crazed compaisions to the nazis and how Obama will personally come to take your guns away . . .)

 

Do you also think drivers licenses are unneccessary? Or should we have people driving around like chimpanzees crashing into people just because they can buy a car?

[Caveman_Nick]

That is great! But it doesnt address the fact that is a course was required by a 3rd party, then maybe a 7 year old wouldnt have accidently killed his father. People do take the couses all the time. RESPONSIBLE gun owners. The idea is designed to protect the RESPONSIBLE gun owners by reducing the amount of IRRESPONSIBLE gun owners through education.

 

BP, I am just addressing the points you are bringing up. Can I answer for all gun owners? No. I can't answer for All People on anything. I can just tell you that these courses are available and easily accessible pretty much everywhere. Many gun clubs require safety courses for people to even join.

 

Again, if you want this training to be mandatory, put it in public education.

 

We RESPONSIBLE gun owners generally aren't the ones asking for protection from the IRRESPONSIBLE ones. WE are prefer less government intervention and more stress on personal responsibility, because personal responsibility is the only safety measure that is effective. The government can't (physically) get between a finger and a trigger.

 

All this aside, if you think that a safety course is defense against the possibility of a seven year old doing something stupid and making a mistake then you are looney. The only defense against that is vigilant supervision by the adult at hand.

[wiegie]

I can just picture Az watching this on a Saturday morning and yelling "Nanny State... Nanny State!!!"

[i_am_the_swammi]

All this aside, if you think that a safety course is defense against the possibility of a seven year old doing something stupid and making a mistake then you are looney. The only defense against that is vigilant supervision by the adult at hand.

 

So lets come full circle.

 

You note that the "only defense against that is vigilant supervision by the adult at hand". Obviously, in this case, the adult at hand was irresponsible at best...ridiculously careless is more like it. Do we agree?

 

And if so, how on earth should he have been able to get a firearm in the first place? Should we just hand out weapons to the irresponsible, and hope they aren't as careless as this clown? Or should society require some sort of minimal education course (the same way they do with automobile operation) before someone is allowed to purchase a weapon?

[bpwallace49]

BP, I am just addressing the points you are bringing up. Can I answer for all gun owners? No. I can't answer for All People on anything. I can just tell you that these courses are available and easily accessible pretty much everywhere. Many gun clubs require safety courses for people to even join.

 

Again, if you want this training to be mandatory, put it in public education.

 

We RESPONSIBLE gun owners generally aren't the ones asking for protection from the IRRESPONSIBLE ones. WE are prefer less government intervention and more stress on personal responsibility, because personal responsibility is the only safety measure that is effective. The government can't (physically) get between a finger and a trigger.

 

All this aside, if you think that a safety course is defense against the possibility of a seven year old doing something stupid and making a mistake then you are looney. The only defense against that is vigilant supervision by the adult at hand.

 

Drivers education is not required as public education. It is only relevant if you want to drive a car.My point is that the courses that you teach could be expanded to be relevant if you want to buy a gun.

 

If the DA learned how to be responsible with a gun first, maybe his son would not have accidently shot him. A gun is a dangerous weapon that can and will affect someone other than yourself. Proper knowledge of its use should be a requirement.

 

bartenders are required to take responsible serving classes to serve booze safety. Pools (at least wherever I have lived) are required to have fencing and certain safety features to discourage people from using them and killing themselves by drowning. A gun when used irresponsibly, can harm others.

 

I am aware of these classes being available, and I have taken hunters safety myself. I would love to see these kinds of safety classes EXPANDED. That is my point Caveman . . .

[Caveman_Nick]

So lets come full circle.

 

You note that the "only defense against that is vigilant supervision by the adult at hand". Obviously, in this case, the adult at hand was irresponsible at best...ridiculously careless is more like it. Do we agree?

 

And if so, how on earth should he have been able to get a firearm in the first place? Should we just hand out weapons to the irresponsible, and hope they aren't as careless as this clown? Or should society require some sort of minimal education course (the same way they do with automobile operation) before someone is allowed to purchase a weapon?

 

Swammi, your post makes many assumptions.

 

Let me ask you this: Has drivers training eliminated accidents?

 

Answer: No. People with safe drivers training and many, many years of experience and often times many, many years of perfect driving records still have accidents and occasionally people get killed.

 

Do you know this guy was a clown, or maybe he just got distracted by something for a brief moment and that ended in a tragic accident.

 

Please show me the law and/or mandatory training that fixes the tendency of humans to get distracted or fixes the capacity of humans to do stupid things.

 

I train. I repeat the safety mantras over and over. People still forget. People make mistakes. You can never overcome that.

[bpwallace49]

Swammi, your post makes many assumptions.

 

Let me ask you this: Has drivers training eliminated accidents?

 

Answer: No. People with safe drivers training and many, many years of experience and often times many, many years of perfect driving records still have accidents and occasionally people get killed.

 

Do you know this guy was a clown, or maybe he just got distracted by something for a brief moment and that ended in a tragic accident.

 

Please show me the law and/or mandatory training that fixes the tendency of humans to get distracted or fixes the capacity of humans to do stupid things.

 

I train. I repeat the safety mantras over and over. People still forget. People make mistakes. You can never overcome that.

 

But you can MITIGATE and REDUCE the mistakes with proper safety training. You are right, you will never eliminate it, but if one life is saved by better education then it is worth it to me.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

I can just picture Az watching this on a Saturday morning and yelling "Nanny State... Nanny State!!!"

 

Something tells me he had a bad experience watching Mary Poppins as a young child.

 

:oldrazz:

[Azazello1313]

so the answer is to have mandatory training in schools for something most parents wouldn't want their kids anywhere near? that would be like forcing schools to teach 7 year olds how to use condoms. oh wait..

[Caveman_Nick]

But you can MITIGATE and REDUCE the mistakes with proper safety training. You are right, you will never eliminate it, but if one life is saved by better education then it is worth it to me.

 

I like safety training. I am an advocate of it. I make money from it.

 

I am not as militant WRT 2A rights as many (although I may have given a different impression int he last).

 

I would accept a law requiring safety training for a permit for any "Shall Issue" state with the sole requirement for that permit being a safety course and a nominal fee covering criminal background check. Fine with that. No complaints.

 

I would also only accept conviction of a felony or or repeat convictions of violent misdemeanors (2 is enough...one bar fight is not a disqualifier IMO) as disqualifiers in the background check.

[Perchoutofwater]

Drivers education is not required as public education. It is only relevant if you want to drive a car.My point is that the courses that you teach could be expanded to be relevant if you want to buy a gun.

 

If the DA learned how to be responsible with a gun first, maybe his son would not have accidently shot him. A gun is a dangerous weapon that can and will affect someone other than yourself. Proper knowledge of its use should be a requirement.

 

bartenders are required to take responsible serving classes to serve booze safety. Pools (at least wherever I have lived) are required to have fencing and certain safety features to discourage people from using them and killing themselves by drowning. A gun when used irresponsibly, can harm others.

 

I am aware of these classes being available, and I have taken hunters safety myself. I would love to see these kinds of safety classes EXPANDED. That is my point Caveman . . .

 

You do not have to have a drivers education course or a drivers license to drive on your own private property. You don't have to take a course in order to serve alcohol to your friends at your home. There are no laws in my county requiring me to have a fence around my swimming pool, and I see them all the time unfenced. All of what you are talking about is only regulated on public or open to the public areas not private property. I have no problem with required permitting (and associated education) for concealed carry, I have no problem with hunters education courses if you are hunting on public lands. I do have a problem with the government telling me what I can do on my own private property.

[gbpfan1231]

But you can MITIGATE and REDUCE the mistakes with proper safety training. You are right, you will never eliminate it, but if one life is saved by better education then it is worth it to me.

I have recently read and posted in these "political" type threads and 99% of the time disagree with BP, Swammi, URSA, etc but in this case I agree with 99% of everything these guys have said.

 

Edit - I disgree 100% with everything that Bushwankewr says and am pretty sure that will never change.

[cre8tiff]

FAIL.

 

This is what you people don't seem to get - there is NO such thing as compromise when the right is involved.

 

Fixed for accuracy.

 

However, I will also say that I had a BB gun at 7, which seems about right for the age. I of course progressed through pellet, .22, shotguns and rifles as I grew older. But was taught to handle a BB gun with the same rules as a real gun. It proved a great foundation for responsible gun ownership. Which, BTW, is the goal of gun control, IMHO. I think you SHOULD have to at least as many hoops to jump through to own a gun as drive a car.