Argue for Mandated Training So As To Exercise a Basic Civil Right

[InitialKev]

Does anyone think we'd even be able to have this discussion if we didn't have the 2nd Amendment? All the statistics and realities of gun ownership hold true in the UK and Australia...taking away guns has made no one safer...yet gun bans passed with no problem.

If you aren't a fan of the Constitution, I don't know what to tell you, other than I have little use for you and your ridiculous arguments.

We're not talking about a total ban like in the UK or Australia...In fact I am totally against that because if you take away people's guns they won't have an effective way of defending themselves.

If you wholeheartedly back the constitution as it is written without restrictions do you believe that criminals or violent people or even kids should have unrestricted access to guns? It IS their RIGHT to bear arms is it not?

 

[strider12]

We're not talking about a total ban like in the UK or Australia...In fact I am totally against that because if you take away people's guns they won't have an effective way of defending themselves.

If you wholeheartedly back the constitution as it is written without restrictions do you believe that criminals or violent people or even kids should have unrestricted access to guns? It IS their RIGHT to bear arms is it not?

Yes. And the kids part of it would fall on the parents to regulate.

And as far as "violent" people, if somebody can't be trusted with a gun they shouldn't be on the street.

 

[InitialKev]

Yes. And the kids part of it would fall on the parents to regulate.

And as far as "violent" people, if somebody can't be trusted with a gun they shouldn't be on the street.

Why should kids need to be regulated by parents if it is their constitutional right? Could it be...could it be that it's the safe and responsible way to promote proper firearms handling??

 

[strider12]

Why should kids need to be regulated by parents if it is their constitutional right? Could it be...could it be that it's the safe and responsible way to promote proper firearms handling??

What are you talking about? Are you just setting up a straw man?

 

[InitialKev]

What are you talking about? Are you just setting up a straw man?

WTF is a straw man? Is it kind of like a scarecrow?

 

[batoncolle]

I don't believe other constitutional arguments are weak because they don't involve people having a dangerous weapon. Do you believe criminals or violent people should have guns? What about kids?

Millions of people drive every single day. The more they are on the road the more likely they are to get into an accident. How many people use their firearms everyday? That I have no idea but I'm willing to bet it's a lot less than people that drive. Even law enforcement don't use their guns everyday so your argument doesn't hold as much water as you think it does.

If I were to take a training course I would immediately cease to be a hypocrite even if my views remain the same? Would I be a hypocrite if I said alcoholics should go to AA meetings but I haven't been to one myself?

More wars, violence, and death have started as the result of the spoken word than firearms. And based on some of the comments in this thread, there most certainly should be training required before opening your mouth to exercise your freedom of speech.

What makes you a hypocrite is that you are throwing around comments about how people are unsafe and firearms are dangerous so they should take a training class, but yet you have never done so yourself. You even admitted to sweeping someone with your gun so in reality who knows how many times you have done it. Why do you NOT need a training class but everyone else does? Do you need the government to mandate it for you because you will not take the steps to do it yourself???

In addition you never even offered proof of these alleged safety issues with firearms. I showed you that in 2010 there were 606 accidental deaths from firearms in a country of 300 million, and although tragic, that is .0002% of the population. Where is all the mayhem and safety issues? Frankly you are speaking out of your arse about something you know absolutely nothing about. You are using emotions instead of facts or logic because of some perceived issue that does not even exist.

 

[dunkel]

We're not talking about a total ban like in the UK or Australia...In fact I am totally against that because if you take away people's guns they won't have an effective way of defending themselves.

You brought up the 2nd Amendment and how it's not a good argument for gun rights. I'm sorry, but without the 2nd Amendment, there is no effective argument for gun rights, as evidenced by Australia and UK.

If you wholeheartedly back the constitution as it is written without restrictions do you believe that criminals or violent people or even kids should have unrestricted access to guns? It IS their RIGHT to bear arms is it not?

If criminals have served their time or whatever their punishment was, then yes, they should have their rights restored. As someone else said, if they're too dangerous to trust with their Constitutional rights, they are too dangerous to allow on the streets.

My children do have "unrestricted" access to guns, albeit under my own supervision. The difference is that it's not the government, it's me.

 

[InitialKev]

More wars, violence, and death have started as the result of the spoken word than firearms. And based on some of the comments in this thread, there most certainly should be training required before opening your mouth to exercise your freedom of speech.

What makes you a hypocrite is that you are throwing around comments about how people are unsafe and firearms are dangerous so they should take a training class, but yet you have never done so yourself. You even admitted to sweeping someone with your gun so in reality who knows how many times you have done it. Why do you NOT need a training class but everyone else does? Do you need the government to mandate it for you because you will not take the steps to do it yourself???

In addition you never even offered proof of these alleged safety issues with firearms. I showed you that in 2010 there were 606 accidental deaths from firearms in a country of 300 million, and although tragic, that is .0002% of the population. Where is all the mayhem and safety issues? Frankly you are speaking out of your arse about something you know absolutely nothing about. You are using emotions instead of facts or logic because of some perceived issue that does not even exist.

Yeah I did admit that I swept the guy with the gun. It was my first time ever handling a firearm. Are you telling me that you've never done it? Are you saying that the first time you handled a firearm that you absolutely did not do something unsafe? I've been very careful since then and have had no accidents in the two and a half years that I've owned and carried a gun. Is it bound to happen one day? Sure. The risk is always there. Yeah I didn't take an official safety training course but I was taught safe handling. Hypocrisy is defined as -The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess. What would make me a hypocrite is if I was the kind of person that people in THIS thread is talking about being unsafe at the range.

Alcoholics should go to AA meetings. Am I a hypocrite for suggesting that because I'm not an alcoholic and haven't been to an AA meeting to know the benefits it would have?

You pulled up a statistics on accidental gun deaths. Good for you but can you pull up one for negligent discharges/ accidents that didn't result in death or how many times someone does something unsafe? Probably not. You compared car accident deaths to gun accident deaths but the frequency of use between the two things is way disproportionate making it an invalid comparison. This is the second time I brought this up because you didn't address it the first time. I wonder why...

The problem with statistics is that it can be muddied and what you come up with can differ depending on where or who you get the statistic from. Not every accident is reported and thus not included in whatever statistic you found. The mere fact that you are arguing that safety training is completely ineffective just boggles my mind.

You know two can play this game. Show me a statistic that says firearms safety training courses are ineffective. You probably can't because there has to be information on both sides to be able to directly compare.

The fact that there were 606 accidental gun deaths in 2010 shows that it isn't just "some perceived issue that does not even exist".

 

[rwurbanwildlife]

Being in the military mandates training. If someone decides to going into the military it suggests that they have put some thought into the life changing decision and have a good head on their shoulders. Just because someone is old enough to do something doesn't mean they'll do it responsibility.

This is a completely worthless example of a foolish backwards argument. "mature enough to make one decision" (join the military). But not mature enough to make a decision to carry without, the same could be applied to any other person of any age group....

 

[InitialKev]

You brought up the 2nd Amendment and how it's not a good argument for gun rights. I'm sorry, but without the 2nd Amendment, there is no effective argument for gun rights, as evidenced by Australia and UK.

Okay I see your point about the 2nd amendment being the foundation to gun rights. Maybe I should have elaborated on why I said it was weak. I believe that the natural right to defend oneself is universal and that you or I shouldn't need a piece of paper to tell us that we can do so. The current and past administrations has trampled over the constitution and we need more than just relying on that to fight the ever looming battle on gun control.

If criminals have served their time or whatever their punishment was, then yes, they should have their rights restored. As someone else said, if they're too dangerous to trust with their Constitutional rights, they are too dangerous to allow on the streets.

My children do have "unrestricted" access to guns, albeit under my own supervision. The difference is that it's not the government, it's me.

What about active criminals? Should they have guns? Should kids be able to walk into a gun store and buy guns? Why does your children need your supervision if it is their constitutional right? Where in the 2nd amendment does it say there needs to be supervision?

What I'm trying to get at is that the 2nd amendment cannot be absolute and taken as it is written due to common sense. If you preach the 2nd amendment but try to put ANY personal restrictions on it you become a hypocrite.