AZ - Unlikely Opponents To New Concealed Carry Law

[Realtor MA]

I wouldn't loan my chainsaw to anyone without making sure that they knew how to use it safely. The point is that I don't want the government to require someone to have formal training in order to buy and use a chainsaw. Can't you see the difference?

I see the difference. I also want to be clear. I don't want the .gov involved either.
I find it interesting that you won't loan your chain saw to anyone unless you are sure they know how to use it. So let me ask you this; If you were in charge of the safety for a city or town. Say perhaps you were the Chief of Police. What requirements, if any, would you impose on the citizens of your town before you decided to grant them a gun license? Keep in mind that everyone from a gang banger to a doctor will be asking for a gun. Or maybe someone with diminished eye sight or a very low IQ or maybe they lack the coordination to drive a car. Maybe they are depressed, or maybe you know them and you know that they have a very intense temper and have been known to start fist fights at the local bar but have never been arrested. Tell me how you would deal with all of this.

 

[M1911]

What requirements, if any, would you impose on the citizens of your town before you decided to grant them a gun license?

If I was dictator, you wouldn't need a license. If I was a MA police chief, I would issue LTC-A unrestricted to anyone who met the statutory requirements. No interview or references or letter required.

Keep in mind that everyone from a gang banger to a doctor will be asking for a gun.

The gang banger will have a criminal record and most likely will be legally prevented by federal law.

Or maybe someone with diminished eye sight or a very low IQ or maybe they lack the coordination to drive a car. Maybe they are depressed, or maybe you know them and you know that they have a very intense temper and have been known to start fist fights at the local bar but have never been arrested.

1) Not every tragedy can be prevented. The cost of reducing every possible risk is oppressive government. Under Communist rule, life was very safe in the Warsaw Pact countries. That doesn't mean it was the right way to live.

2) People don't get into fights in bars these days and not get arrested. Those days are long gone, for better or worse.

 

[drgrant]

So let me ask you this; If you were in charge of the safety for a city or town. Say perhaps you were the Chief of Police. What requirements, if any, would you impose on the citizens of your town before you decided to grant them a gun license? Keep in mind that everyone from a gang banger to a doctor will be asking for a gun. Or maybe someone with diminished eye sight or a very low IQ or maybe they lack the coordination to drive a car. Maybe they are depressed, or maybe you know them and you know that they have a very intense temper and have been known to start fist fights at the local bar but have never been arrested. Tell me how you would deal with all of this.

I know this wasn't directed at me, but this is how I would answer your question...

I would issue licenses in precise accordance with the statutory terms set out in the law, and nothing more- and likely petition to legislators and other individuals to eliminate the licensing scheme altogether. Having to make LTCs or FIDs is an ENORMOUS waste of departmental staff time and resources. That's a LEO I can't have on the street or a staffer which could be doing more productive things than wasting hours of time filing paperwork, running BG checks, etc. It's cheaper to the community to not require them at all. I would be pissed that the state was using me as an administrative lackey for their crappy laws which serve little to no direct purpose. The overwhelming majority of people that cause us problems do not come seeking gun licenses. We can arrest and charge people who break laws or put other people in danger- what more do we need to do our job effectively?

Do you really believe that gangbangers and people who don't have their crap together are going to go through the hassle of getting a gun license? No- they will buy whatever the heck they want on the street without all the hassle. The low offense rates among permit holders in most states bears this out pretty well- not to mention much of the revocable offenses are not for "pure violent crimes" but instead for other things like 209A type ROs, or DUI convictions, etc, or other statutory disqualification.

-Mike

 

[Realtor MA]

I know this wasn't directed at me, but this is how I would answer your question...

I would issue licenses in precise accordance with the statutory terms set out in the law, and nothing more- and likely petition to legislators and other individuals to eliminate the licensing scheme altogether. Having to make LTCs or FIDs is an ENORMOUS waste of departmental staff time and resources. That's a LEO I can't have on the street or a staffer which could be doing more productive things than wasting hours of time filing paperwork, running BG checks, etc. It's cheaper to the community to not require them at all. I would be pissed that the state was using me as an administrative lackey for their crappy laws which serve little to no direct purpose. The overwhelming majority of people that cause us problems do not come seeking gun licenses. We can arrest and charge people who break laws or put other people in danger- what more do we need to do our job effectively?

Do you really believe that gangbangers and people who don't have their crap together are going to go through the hassle of getting a gun license? No- they will buy whatever the heck they want on the street without all the hassle. The low offense rates among permit holders in most states bears this out pretty well- not to mention much of the revocable offenses are not for "pure violent crimes" but instead for other things like 209A type ROs, or DUI convictions, etc, or other statutory disqualification.

-Mike

Great response. I agree that the Chiefs probably don't want the responsibility although there are some who want the power for the wrong reasons. Sadly the law includes 'discretion' and the point I was attempting to make in my post is that the Chiefs now bear the responsibility of determining who is suitable and who isn't. Cato, won't loan a chain saw unless he knows the guy has certain skills yet he wants the .gov to simply hand out licenses without any training or indication of proficency(sp). The idea of mandatory training is not what I would hope for. As I posted earlier in this thread, gun handling should be a part of the school system. If kids can learn about sex, drugs and cars then I think they can also learn about guns.
As for the gang bangers; maybe they will buy on the street but if they walk in and apply, with no criminal record but perhaps a shady past, should they be granted a permit?

 

[M1911]

Do you really believe that gangbangers and people who don't have their crap together are going to go through the hassle of getting a gun license? No- they will buy whatever the heck they want on the street without all the hassle. The low offense rates among permit holders in most states bears this out pretty well- not to mention much of the revocable offenses are not for "pure violent crimes" but instead for other things like 209A type ROs, or DUI convictions, etc, or other statutory disqualification.

That was basically what the previous licensing officer for the Wayland PD told me when we were chatting.

 

[M1911]

Great response. I agree that the Chiefs probably don't want the responsibility although there are some who want the power for the wrong reasons. Sadly the law includes 'discretion' and the point I was attempting to make in my post is that the Chiefs now bear the responsibility of determining who is suitable and who isn't. Cato, won't loan a chain saw unless he knows the guy has certain skills yet he wants the .gov to simply hand out licenses without any training or indication of proficency(sp).

There is a difference here. The town and the chief have no liability if they hand Mongo an LTC and he then goes postal. Cato, on the other hand, can be sued if you borrow his chainsaw and proceed to cut off your hand. Furthermore, Cato isn't the only source for a chain saw. If you don't like Cato's terms for borrowing a chain saw, you can go rent one from Home Despot, or buy one instead. But if you want an LTC, your only source is the State. Cato isn't preventing you from using a chain saw, but the State can prevent you from buying and using a gun. See the difference?

 

[Uncle Ogre]

Furthermore, the whole point of not having the government tell us what to do, is not so that we can have someone else do the exact same thing.

I never said that, you are putting words into my mouth...

It's possible that I misunderstood what you were trying to say. You posted the first quote in response to SHadeWPI's list of examples where private businesses were restriced from operating as they chose by the government. You called that list of examples "rediculousness". Who is the "someone else" you are referring to, if not private business? What is ridiculous about a private business having the liberty to operate as they so choose?

He meant the store is just as bad as the gvt. doing it, he's not the kind to advocate for gvt. interference. At least if he is, he's kept in hidden from me every time we've talked guns .

Are you saying that a private business setting its own parameters on how to treat its customers is "just as bad" as the government setting those parameters?

 

[drgrant]

Great response. I agree that the Chiefs probably don't want the responsibility although there are some who want the power for the wrong reasons. Sadly the law includes 'discretion' and the point I was attempting to make in my post is that the Chiefs now bear the responsibility of determining who is suitable and who isn't.

It doesn't state this at all.. it only states that they have the power to do it, not that they are compelled by force of law to actually -use- that discretionary power. There is no verbiage in MGLthat states that a chief must use his own discretion to further screen applicants beyond what is required by the law. Not a word in regards to that.

Further, even if there was some "liability" to the chiefs WRT licensing, which do you think gives them a better leg to stand on- a bunch of arbitrary rules, or whatever is set forth in the law? IMHO things like restricted licenses gives other parties a segue to question your judgment as a chief- the first thing they are going to ask is- "If you didn't think this individual was good enough to carry a gun, then why did you issue them a permit at all? " The real answer is that the corrupt red towns issue restrictions because they know that denials are somewhat contestable, and such a denial can cause unwanted political attention. It's politically cheaper for them to restrict a license than it is to deny one outright.

Cato, won't loan a chain saw unless he knows the guy has certain skills yet he wants the .gov to simply hand out licenses without any training or indication of proficency(sp).

I don't mean to speak for him, but I'd bet he'd suggest that the government shouldn't be handing out licenses at all. Then the "responsibility" ball is squarely in the court of the gun buyer/owner, as it was meant to be.

The idea of mandatory training is not what I would hope for.

Well, then what do you want? Voluntary is better... and we already have that. Sometimes it's even free! (Not sure if this is the case now, but Women basically used to get WOT for free via GOAL, among other things. )

As I posted earlier in this thread, gun handling should be a part of the school system. If kids can learn about sex, drugs and cars then I think they can also learn about guns.

I'm not necessarily in disagreement with that. Let's start by firing moonbat public school teachers and go from there.

As for the gang bangers; maybe they will buy on the street but if they walk in and apply, with no criminal record but perhaps a shady past, should they be granted a permit?

Again, as M1911 states the overwhelming majority of people we have to be concerned with are statutorily disqualified to begin with. How many gang bangers can make it to age 21 without a rap sheet? Probably not many. If they can, by some miracle, then they should be eligible for the
permit if they meet the statutory requirements, just like everyone else.

Further, what is a "shady past"? One of the fundamental tenets of our justice system, is that it operates on due process. Some guy having a "shady past" without a criminal record doesn't work with this concept- things which aren't accounted for by the system don't count in the eyes of the law. If we go down this road, that means we're getting into things like "pre crime" and operating a virtual banana republic. Those kinds of things, on principle, are corrupt and against the tenets of the American justice system. One of the conditions of our justice system working properly is that the government must obey the rules that are in place- otherwise the rule of law is tarnished and then the law becomes less effective as a result, because less people will respect it. It gets somewhat more complicated than this, but this point is very important. To put it simply, it's a public trust issue... which do you think the community is going to trust more- a chief that follows the letter of the law, and is firm, but fair in its application- or one that is running a little banana republic
by trying to make up his own subjective rules that have no basis in law?

-Mike

 

[ShadeWPI]

Uncle Ogre,

Thank you for taking up my argument. I decided it wasn't worth it anymore after DW kept putting words in my mouth in an attempt to "prove" my opinion was wrong.

 

[DickWanner]

It's possible that I misunderstood what you were trying to say. You posted the first quote in response to SHadeWPI's list of examples where private businesses were restriced from operating as they chose by the government. You called that list of examples "rediculousness". Who is the "someone else" you are referring to, if not private business? What is ridiculous about a private business having the liberty to operate as they so choose?

Are you saying that a private business setting its own parameters on how to treat its customers is "just as bad" as the government setting those parameters?

You are reading what you want it to read, not what it actually says. I could talk until I'm blue in the face and you would still only be reading what you want it to read.

Uncle Ogre,

Thank you for taking up my argument. I decided it wasn't worth it anymore after DW kept putting words in my mouth in an attempt to "prove" my opinion was wrong.

Show me where I have "put words in your mouth" and I will change my arguement. The fact stands that you have a false notion of what is "safe" and you want private businesses to be just as tyranical and restrictive as the government is now. Am I wrong? Is that not what you are saying? You may be trying to say that you want everyone to live in kumbaya "safe" harmony, but the reality is far from what you are trying to advocate.

 

[Uncle Ogre]

You are reading what you want it to read, not what it actually says. I could talk until I'm blue in the face and you would still only be reading what you want it to read.

I've stated clearly that I might be misunderstanding what you're trying to say. I don't "want it to read" anything, I just want to understand what you're trying to say. All I'm asking you to do is explain who is this "someone else" you are referring to?

... the whole point of not having the government tell us what to do, is not so that we can have someone else do the exact same thing.

... you want private businesses to be just as tyranical and restrictive as the government is now. Am I wrong?

I do not want private business to be "tyranical and restrictive". I do think that as a private entity they have the right to be as "tyranical and restrictive" as they choose. I can then choose to do business with them, or choose not to. If I choose not to do business with them, have they harmed me in any way? If they have not harmed me, what right do I have to demand that they stop their "tyranical and restrictive" practices?

 

[DickWanner]

I do not want private business to be "tyranical and restrictive". I do think that as a private entity they have the right to be as "tyranical and restrictive" as they choose. I can then choose to do business with them, or choose not to. If I choose not to do business with them, have they harmed me in any way? If they have not harmed me, what right do I have to demand that they stop their "tyranical and restrictive" practices?

Fair enough.

What I am saying is why would you be all up in arms about the .gov mandating training and safety courses, but then be okay with and then choose to patronize private businesses that mandate training and safety course. I never once said that a private business should not be allowed to do whatever they want. "Safety" arguements aside, how the hell can you be okay with that sceanario? We are against big government for a reason, not just for the basic principle of 'big government = bad'. The latter is simply being a bandwagon poser.

Furthermore, what do you think happens when a bunch of different private businesses have a bunch of different rules/standards? Thats right, they form a group that advocates one standard, usually with government intervention. When the .gov gets involved even those private businesses who didn't advocate the standard now have to follow it anyways. Congratulations you are now chasing your tail.


I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone, nor say that their opinion is 'wrong' (which is subjective anyways). Sometimes I just tend to think and look at things from a different angle and am merely giving my persepective.

 

[cekim]

Great response. I agree that the Chiefs probably don't want the responsibility although there are some who want the power for the wrong reasons.

I would bet that a majority of them want the power, but not the responsibility. As we see from MCOPA's stance on this, they want to retain their authority over this process. Meanwhile they are scrambling away from potential liability (phantom liability as we've discussed, but they are changing policies for fear of it).

Since they don't teach civics, government and history any more, I guess we need to point out explicitly that the failing of government here is separation of powers.

Having the enforcer and the regulator be the same guy is broken on its face and designed for abuse. This is why our governmental structure has different branches. To limit the ability of any one branch to accumulate too much power.

The power to set the rules and enforce them is too much power by any measure.

If that wasn't plain enough - the issue is "Calvinball". "You lose because I just decided that if you stand still I win"...

 

[ShadeWPI]

Show me where I have "put words in your mouth" and I will change my arguement. The fact stands that you have a false notion of what is "safe" and you want private businesses to be just as tyranical and restrictive as the government is now. Am I wrong? Is that not what you are saying? You may be trying to say that you want everyone to live in kumbaya "safe" harmony, but the reality is far from what you are trying to advocate.

Let's break down your statements in just THIS POST

The fact stands that you have a false notion of what is "safe"

Not ONCE have I ever said that I believe, even for a second, that safety courses eliminate accidents or even guarentee that people will follow safe practices. All I have said is that then a Range/Club requires members to demonstrate an understanding of Firearms Safety before using their facilities I FEEL safer using those facilities because I at least know that the people beside me has had to meet SOME standard and demonstrated that they at LEAST understand the basics of Firearm Safety.

you want private businesses to be just as tyranical and restrictive as the government is now

Not ONCE have I ever said that I WANT private businesses to be "just as tyranical and restrictive as the government is now" I believe I have strongly implied the opposite. I have stated that I believe private businesses should have the RIGHT to conduct business how and withwhom they see fit. I have also stated that I would reward a business with my patronage for taking a stand and requiring customers/users/members to demonstrate at LEAST an understnading of basic Firearm Safety. I have also specifically stated that such could be as simple as handing a potential customer a firearm and asking them to make it safe" or some other simple observation or test to demonstrate the the person understands the basics of safety. The major difference between a private business imposing its own requirements and the government imposing requirements is simple: If a private business imposses unreasonable requirements, they will invite compeition with alternate requirements. As such, the consumer has a strong influence over what is reasonable and what isn't. I have also said that I would even pay a slightly higher price for firearms supplies to a vendor who choose to have some reasonable requirement (I did use the NRA training course there as an example, sorry if that caused your confusion) because I believe that it is prudent for a vendor to ensure a customer understands the safety of their product.

You may be trying to say that you want everyone to live in kumbaya "safe" harmony, but the reality is far from what you are trying to advocate.

I have been saying that I prefer to know that the person sitting next to me at a range has met some standard that I am aware of an agree with. I have never implied that would eliminate accidents or even unsafe practices. I have said that would make me more comfortable because, believe it or not, when people at least understand safety practices they are LESS LIKELY to have accidents and endanger the lives of others.

So you may not have said "You say X" but you have repeatedly in this thread stated my beliefs as facts despite the fact that your claims of my beliefs are exagerated stretched from what I've said.

I shoot at a few publich ranges. Would you rather shoot where:

1) The Range takes a person's licence and money, hands them targets, a rental gun and box of ammo and sends them to the range without ever inquiring or checking about their understanding of the operation or safe use of that firearm
or
2) The Range that asks each person to demonstrate the knowledge and ability to make a weapon safe, and if they don't, explain basic firearms handling, safety and the proper use of the firearm they're using?

Personally, I prefer the second as I believe it demonstrates an interest in their customers welbeing and safety and reasures me that the person shooting beside me has at least been told what to do and what not to do. At a club shooting range, it makes me more confident that when there's a call for a safe range to change targets, everyone on the line knows what that means.

As someone pointed out, the locked and loaded pistol sitting on the bench isn't going to fire on it's own, but I also don't want to have to keep looking over my shoulder to see if the person who left it locked and loaded is going to start playing with it either.

 

[DickWanner]

Let's break down your statements in just THIS POST



Not ONCE have I ever said that I believe, even for a second, that safety courses eliminate accidents or even guarentee that people will follow safe practices. All I have said is that then a Range/Club requires members to demonstrate an understanding of Firearms Safety before using their facilities I FEEL safer using those facilities because I at least know that the people beside me has had to meet SOME standard and demonstrated that they at LEAST understand the basics of Firearm Safety.



Not ONCE have I ever said that I WANT private businesses to be "just as tyranical and restrictive as the government is now" I believe I have strongly implied the opposite. I have stated that I believe private businesses should have the RIGHT to conduct business how and withwhom they see fit. I have also stated that I would reward a business with my patronage for taking a stand and requiring customers/users/members to demonstrate at LEAST an understnading of basic Firearm Safety. I have also specifically stated that such could be as simple as handing a potential customer a firearm and asking them to make it safe" or some other simple observation or test to demonstrate the the person understands the basics of safety. The major difference between a private business imposing its own requirements and the government imposing requirements is simple: If a private business imposses unreasonable requirements, they will invite compeition with alternate requirements. As such, the consumer has a strong influence over what is reasonable and what isn't. I have also said that I would even pay a slightly higher price for firearms supplies to a vendor who choose to have some reasonable requirement (I did use the NRA training course there as an example, sorry if that caused your confusion) because I believe that it is prudent for a vendor to ensure a customer understands the safety of their product.



I have been saying that I prefer to know that the person sitting next to me at a range has met some standard that I am aware of an agree with. I have never implied that would eliminate accidents or even unsafe practices. I have said that would make me more comfortable because, believe it or not, when people at least understand safety practices they are LESS LIKELY to have accidents and endanger the lives of others.

So you may not have said "You say X" but you have repeatedly in this thread stated my beliefs as facts despite the fact that your claims of my beliefs are exagerated stretched from what I've said.

I shoot at a few publich ranges. Would you rather shoot where:

1) The Range takes a person's licence and money, hands them targets, a rental gun and box of ammo and sends them to the range without ever inquiring or checking about their understanding of the operation or safe use of that firearm
or
2) The Range that asks each person to demonstrate the knowledge and ability to make a weapon safe, and if they don't, explain basic firearms handling, safety and the proper use of the firearm they're using?

Personally, I prefer the second as I believe it demonstrates an interest in their customers welbeing and safety and reasures me that the person shooting beside me has at least been told what to do and what not to do. At a club shooting range, it makes me more confident that when there's a call for a safe range to change targets, everyone on the line knows what that means.

As someone pointed out, the locked and loaded pistol sitting on the bench isn't going to fire on it's own, but I also don't want to have to keep looking over my shoulder to see if the person who left it locked and loaded is going to start playing with it either.

You've already admitted that you would rather feel safe, so I don't think I shout have to say any more. You are not basing your opinion on logic, just feelings.

 

[Realtor MA]

I'm not necessarily in disagreement with that. Let's start by firing moonbat public school teachers and go from there.

Now you're talking!!

 

[ShadeWPI]

You've already admitted that you would rather feel safe, so I don't think I shout have to say any more. You are not basing your opinion on logic, just feelings.

I would rather feel safe than not feel safe? Of course. I believe everyone on this board would rather feel safe than not feel safe?

I am basing my opinion on logic. The proven fact that given a random sampling of people, those with safety training will be more safe than those without. That doesn't say those with training are perfectly safe or those without training are inherently unsafe.

Yes, there are people who will be inherently safe without training.
Yes, there are people who will be dangerous despite training.
Yes, unforseen accidents can and do happen.

None of that changes the fact that a group of people who have training will be safer as a whole and a group without. Even when that training is entirely common sense.

Now, we've hijacked this thread long enough and I'm pretty sure everyone here is tired of hearing us fire back and forth. I'm happy to end this saying that we agree:

Government has no place imposing requirements for the purchasing of firearms or the use of a range
Private businesses should have the right to place whatever restrictions they feel prudent on how they do business
Everyone should seek out at least basic safety training

and we simply disagree on the role that Private Business operators should play in encouraging that training.

 

[THUNDERCHIEF]

TO THOSE THAT THINK A SAFETY COURSE REQUIREMENT SHOULD BE MANDATORY:

I GET IT. I completely understand the way you feel. I used to think it was reasonable too. I was not against a safety course requirement because I don’t want to be accidentally SHOT by some noob diddling with his firearm while walking by my house or at the range. It seemed so reasonable a requirement to me that I did not give it much thought and I even believed that every responsible gun owner felt the same way. Then, a few years ago I joined NES. Soon thereafter, I read NESers saying that it was NOT reasonable. This surprised me and caused me to re-evaluate my reasoning. I thought, these people are down to earth, reasonable, responsible people…..why would they advocate for NO SAFETY requirements to obtain a firearm even for first time buyers? It was at this point, the point where I actually took time to think about it, that I realized something even MORE fundamental than safety: FEAR. I realized I was afraid of ignorant gun owners. It was this fear that was motivating me to rely on the government to protect me by requiring a safety course before buying a gun. I thought WOW! This is EXACTLY what I accuse anti-gun people of doing when they say they want restrictions and bans on firearms! I realized that while I was telling the antis “You either believe in the Constitution OR you dont! You cant have it both ways!” at the same time I believed that safety course requirements were reasonable even though the constitution says “… the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed”. I WAS WRONG. I was a hypocrite. Once I connected all the dots and realized all this I changed my mind for good. I had already believed that there were tradeoffs to living in a FREE society, I now realize that noobs with guns walking by my house or standing next to me at the range is one of the tradeoffs. I believe in freedom, so I must accept the tradeoffs of freedom.

I do believe that all gun owners should voluntarily seek professional instruction for firearm safety. I also believe that things can be done to nudge new gun owners in the right direction in a “course not required” world. Maybe a “Firearms Safety Education Campaign” sponsored by the NRA where literature is provided to firearms dealers that can be passed on to customers (when the dealer realizes that the customer is buying their first gun). Maybe the gun culture will adopt peer-pressure as a motivational tool to get noobs to train. There is probably a bunch of effective ways to get new gun owners to voluntarily seek training. But the WRONG way is to give-up freedom and ask the government to simply require training. We must get away from the government being in the habit of protecting us from ourselves.

/John

 

[DickWanner]

I would rather feel safe than not feel safe? Of course. I believe everyone on this board would rather feel safe than not feel safe?

I would rather be safe.

I am basing my opinion on logic. The proven fact that given a random sampling of people, those with safety training will be more safe than those without. That doesn't say those with training are perfectly safe or those without training are inherently unsafe.

Cites please.

Yes, there are people who will be inherently safe without training.
Yes, there are people who will be dangerous despite training.
Yes, unforseen accidents can and do happen.

None of that changes the fact that a group of people who have training will be safer as a whole and a group without. Even when that training is entirely common sense.

Once again, cites please.

Now, we've hijacked this thread long enough and I'm pretty sure everyone here is tired of hearing us fire back and forth. I'm happy to end this saying that we agree:

Government has no place imposing requirements for the purchasing of firearms or the use of a range
Private businesses should have the right to place whatever restrictions they feel prudent on how they do business
Everyone should seek out at least basic safety training

Yes, everyone should educate themselves on safety. Not neccessarily a class/instructor training.

and we simply disagree on the role that Private Business operators should mind their own business.

FIFY, though I agree that it should probably end here as we've hashed it out enough. It was a good run though

 

[Uncle Ogre]

What I am saying is why would you be all up in arms about the .gov mandating training and safety courses, but then be okay with and then choose to patronize private businesses that mandate training and safety course.

Because I have the choice. I am against government mandates that interfere with private businesses, even when that mandate benefits me personally. I despise the government meddling that has banned smoking in restaurants and bars, yet I am much more likely to spend my money there now that they are smoke-free. If you thought that more widespread training would benefit you by reducing accidents around you, one way to affect that would be to only spend your money at stores that required training. If the market moved far enough in that direction such that non-mandatory-training stores went out of business, I have no problem with that. That's the free market at work, and is vastly different than the government requiring gun stores to provide training, even if the practical outcome is the same.

Furthermore, what do you think happens when a bunch of different private businesses have a bunch of different rules/standards? Thats right, they form a group that advocates one standard, usually with government intervention. When the .gov gets involved even those private businesses who didn't advocate the standard now have to follow it anyways. Congratulations you are now chasing your tail.

You've lost me here. Absent government interference, what we have "when a bunch of different private businesses have a bunch of different rules/standards" is a diverse and free market with lots of choices for the consumer, and likely low prices and high innovation. I guess I'm not following how having multiple standards makes government interference more likely. I expect our current government to interfere when it sees an opportunity to control behavior and extract taxes. I doubt that the number of market choices has any effect on that.

I'm not trying to be offensive to anyone, nor say that their opinion is 'wrong' (which is subjective anyways). Sometimes I just tend to think and look at things from a different angle and am merely giving my persepective.

I appreciate your willingness to respond to my questions. I think we're closer to agreement than I once thought, but until you explained your reasoning I was having a hard time understanding what you'd posted.

 

[Uncle Ogre]

I had already believed that there were tradeoffs to living in a FREE society, I now realize that noobs with guns walking by my house or standing next to me at the range is one of the tradeoffs. I believe in freedom, so I must accept the tradeoffs of freedom.

... the WRONG way is to give-up freedom and ask the government to simply require training. We must get away from the government being in the habit of protecting us from ourselves.

Emphasis mine. Outstanding post, and +1 to you, sir. The more people that understand these 2 ideas the better off we'll all be.

 

[DickWanner]

I appreciate your willingness to respond to my questions. I think we're closer to agreement than I once thought, but until you explained your reasoning I was having a hard time understanding what you'd posted.

You're not the only one bud, sometimes even I have a hard time understanding what my brain is thinking

 

[ShadeWPI]

DW, since you asked for citations:

I wasn't able to find any specific studies conducted on the effectiveness of firearms safety training on accident rates, however the effectiveness of Occupational Safety Training has reduced occupational injures by 16% for "general safety training" and 25% for "occupational hazard specific training" http://minerva.jove.com/article.php?pmid=19764188

Inventor of a questionable "safe bullet" for firearms claims to have spent years reviewing accidental shooting cases and notes that "most" occur with people who do not have firearms safety training - http://www.safetybullet.com/qa.html

There was a study in the early 80s on the effectiveness of driver training on collision rates http://www.drivers.com/article/305/ - see table 2-2 about 1/3 of the way down, that showed that driver training reduced accident rates by almost 20% during the first 6-months after the training. Benefits dropped after that 6-month period.

Alabama showed that since it added mandatory hunter's safety accidental shootings are down 44% and fatal shootings are down more than 60% http://blog.al.com/south-alabama-outdoors/2009/09/hunters_are_safer_than_ever.html

There is a fair body of evidence that safety training reduces the incident rate of accidents. There is an even stronger body of evidence that this is even more effective when training is reinforced repeatedly over time as the effectiveness of one-time training wears off.

 

[GSG]

How many of you would loan a gun to a friend or relative without first knowing if they had at least a basic understanding of it's workings?

I know that was a hypothetical situation, but it was a bad one. Would YOU actually "loan" a gun to someone, free and clear, no strings attached. Kind of a "here ya go, have fun" type of thing?

Yes, I have lent out my guns to people that I trust. Check out post #21 in this thread for an explanation on that one.

'Have fun, here ya go' is exactly what the .gov and gun shops are doing right now.(think FID cards)

No, you still need to take a safety course if you get an FID card. If you have maintained a license in Mass. since before the law changed in 1998 then you are exempt from the safety course requirement though.

If you were in charge of the safety for a city or town. Say perhaps you were the Chief of Police. What requirements, if any, would you impose on the citizens of your town before you decided to grant them a gun license?

If I were a CLEO in Mass., I would do what the others have said, issues licenses to everyone who can legally get one with no interference or interviews. I'd also campaign to get the gun laws repealed.

A family member of mine was an ADA in Mass., prosecuting a case against a multiple violent felon with serious gang ties, a very bad man. The night before trial, the ADA got a call at home from a friend of the guy he was prosecuting. The guy told him what time his kids had left for school that morning, what they were wearing, and which route they walked (they lived right nearby). He then told him when his wife had left the house, and other details that let the ADA know that this thug had him by the balls. The friend told him on the phone to make the case go away or very bad things would happen to his family. The ADA was friends with the local police chief, and the chief let him apply for his LTC that night at the station, but they all still knew that there was no legal way for him to protect his family when they needed it most: right then.

Criminals will buy, steal, or illegally import guns to get them. Kevin Weeks wrote a book about his time working with Whitey Bulger, the multiple convicted felon who carried a pistol and a hand grenade with him every day, who had silenced machine guns and all kinds of other weapons at his disposal, all 100% illegal, but all very much in his hands.

I ask you, if you were the police chief of your town, what could you possibly do through legal action to limit the armament of those criminals? What could you possibly do through legal action to speed up the access of the law abiding? Nothing. All the flowcharts, LTC applications and fingerprint cards in the world can't do what they're supposed to at either end of the spectrum. Neither can a safety course.

Are you saying that a private business setting its own parameters on how to treat its customers is "just as bad" as the government setting those parameters?

I'm saying that when it comes to guns, a store that sets some bogus requirement is just as bad as the government, because the effect is the same; people do not have access to ready self defense. I'll support the stores right to do so, but I'll also support the store's competition & not give them any of my money. If I found a store like that I would politely and eloquently explain why they suck and how much money I'm going to spend with their business rivals before leaving.

 

[drgrant]

I'm saying that when it comes to guns, a store that sets some bogus requirement is just as bad as the government, because the effect is the same; people do not have access to ready self defense. I'll support the stores right to do so, but I'll also support the store's competition & not give them any of my money. If I found a store like that I would politely and eloquently explain why they suck and how much money I'm going to spend with their business rivals before leaving.

Both are bad, but the government is FAR worse, because it's harder to change the behavior of the government than it is to change the behavior of the vendor. We can simply opt out of buying stuff at the "bad" gun stores if we want to. On the other hand, try opting out of paying your
taxes.... and we all know how well that works.

-Mike

 

[GSG]

Both are bad, but the government is FAR worse, because it's harder to change the behavior of the government than it is to change the behavior of the vendor. We can simply opt out of buying stuff at the "bad" gun stores if we want to. On the other hand, try opting out of paying your
taxes.... and we all know how well that works.

-Mike

Obviously I recognize that one is worse than the other overall, hence the reason while I'll support the right of a business to make stupid decisions, but not the government. However, my point is that the end result is the same..."no soup for you!"

 

[cekim]

On the other hand, try opting out of paying your
taxes.... and we all know how well that works.

-Mike

Get's to the heart of the matter. You punish bad companies by not buying their product. How do you punish bad government? Why is Barney Frank still in office?

The answer is one part sheeple and 2 parts gerrymandering, but the end-result is the same. We keep buying bad product in the form of our politicians.