Nice dodge. You bring up the 1,000 yard example again. That does nothing to refute anything I've said. I've already pointed out that barriers such as walls can significantly reduce the volume of a gunshot. 1,000 yards is not even representative of the typical distance between a shooter and his potential victims but for some reason you seem fixated on that distance.
The acts of murder and/or rape are not made legal in certain situations where compliance with significant federal regulations is performed. There is no license to rape someone for filling out forms. There is no legal way of murdering someone after paying a federal agency two hundred dollars. The analogy and comparison between the two does not work. Either prove such to be factually correct, or recant the claim.
How does such being made mandatory, which would more than likely give federal and state governments yet another department to fund with taxpayer money that could be better spent elsewhere, serve to do anything to improve the lives of either those that own firearms, or those that are around them? The only ones the training will benefit will be those who would be motivated to exercise caution in the first place, while doing nothing for those who are prone to engaging in stupid behavior. No degree of training is going to correct intellectual shortcomings, nor will it motivate someone with potential criminal intentions from refraining in engaging in such behavior.
No it isn't, or you'd be pushing to eliminate gun free zones and asking for mandatory NASCAR safety gear for children riding in vehicles. The latter would save orders of magnitude more children's lives than only allowing mass shooters to use unsuppressed firearms.
worthless analogy. Murder and rape objectively hurt people. gun laws prohibit stuff that doesn't hurt anyone
By that "logic", we shouldn't ban terrorists from boarding planes since more lives could be saved by banning cigarettes. I am reminded of why certain people end up on my ignore list. Explaining things to the logically challenged gets to be tiresome at times.
you are calling others "logically challenged" when you post nonsense like that drivel from the VPC or two Joyce Foundation parrots like Winkler and Cornell-two of the most biased anti gun clowns in academia?
I post certain stuff to provide more balance here. Most people who defend guns in online forums are logically challenged. I'm not sure why but that is the case.
what logic is actually proffered by the anti gun left? Most of the people who whine about gun ownership on online forums are dishonest and are not truthful about their true motivations. BTW if you want to provide balance here you ought to actually supply hundreds of facts and honest arguments in favor of gun bans because right now the balance in truth is all on our side
We are starting to move off topic, but I do generally like your posts (despite disagreeing with your position on guns). - education and training is generally the approach we all take to correct intellectual (knowledge based) short comings. - the money could be spent elsewhere, maybe it should, it is your country and your money, I imagine though most proposals would be setup where by the trainee paid for the training. - as for who the training benefits, well that would depend on the quality and efficacy of the training program. An area which I have no opinion of value to offer. - how does gun safety training improve those peoples lives, again perhaps someone else has more expertise in this matter.
Clearly, the system in Chicago is broken.... and the draconian gun laws there are obviously contributing nothing to public safety.
I believe passionately in the benefits of pursuing training to improve skill and precision. However, once again, the right to be armed is exactly that: A RIGHT. It is the responsibility of each individual citizen who chooses to be armed to pursue the level of training they need. Mandatory training merely means that the state can impose such stringent and unattainable standards that no average person could hope to pass and they have achieved a de facto ban.
Why would the NRA support silencers? I thought they wanted the whole world to know they be real Mericans with guns. If anything I would expect them to want amplifiers made mandatory so more people would know they be manly men.
No, you have missed the point. Laws are the structure by which the values and morality of a society are based. When you have a free society, laws such as bans on murder, assault, rape, etc. are the statement that the society will not accept such depravity against its citizens, and that the society will punish those who violate those values. The laws do not prevent the crime; they enable society to establish the punitive measures they will take against any citizen that refuses to obey the law. That does not prevent those who reject the law from violating it. Laws that place restrictions upon the law-abiding in hopes it will somehow affect the actions of those who hold the law in contempt are wrongheaded in the extreme and doomed to failure; to say nothing of the totalitarian nature of such laws. You can't pass a law to compel those who won't obey the law to comply with the law. All you can do is punish them for breaking the law.
Mandatory training will do nothing to affect criminal use of guns; the number of firearms accidents are already exceedingly tiny. So, there's no sound argument for the constitutionality of infringing on the right to keep and bear arms by requiring training before someone can exercise said right.
its amazing watching anti gun posters spew suggestions that anyone, and I repeat anyone-who has actually any practical knowledge of American criminals-laughs off as silliness. These gun restrictionists are either completely ignorant of the fact that criminals are already banned from possessing firearms and ignore those laws, or these restrictionists feel a need to post some "solution" even when they know it won't work
All they care about is making it harder for the law abiding to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.
that is the only logical conclusion one can draw. now the million dollar question is WHY? my suggestions for an answer 1) political anger-they see gun owners as opposing all they want-especially more socialism and gay and abortion rights 2) a cultural hatred of the "gun Culture". it comprises part of #1 but goes beyond that. it also includes, what writer Jeffrey Snyder describes as the timidity of gun haters and how they don't want to be reminded of their failures as men to make self defense a personal responsibility (but rather outsource the risks to the government) 3) that many on the left identify or sympathize with criminals. The leftwing mentality often sees criminals as "victims of society" who are forced into that lifestyle by an "unfair" economic system and they loathe criminals having to suffer the consequences of what society has done to them. Why they want to make life easier for vicious criminals is an interesting question but that sure seems to be the case with many of those who oppose self defense
Simple: They want the state to have a monopoly ion force; this is impossible to achieve while the citizenry remains armed. Everyting you suggested is inherent in this.
Dimply because a disagreement is had, does not mean civility and respect cannot be had between the two parties. As to the matter of the discussion moving off topic, pray tell how much more discussion on the subject of firearm suppressors can realistically be had? The member Galileo has been the most vocal supporter for current restrictions to be maintained, yet has presented several citations of criminal individuals managing to acquire firearm suppressors by complying with the restrictions and regulations currently in place. The argument is being made on the part of himself, that the regulations found within the national firearms act, possibly one of the strictest firearm-related restrictions in the united states, is simply not good enough to prevent criminals from gaining access to the restricted items. When even the most vocal supporter of a position admits to its apparent uselessness, how much more discussion can realistically be had on the topic? As to the matters down below: This is factually correct. However education can only go so far, and will do nothing for those that refuse to exercise critical thinking skills. School for minors is one matter, but training for adults to exercise their constitutional rights is another. Again, no mention of residency in the united states has been made on the part of myself. But that is not relevant at the moment. As far as the matter of funding being placed upon those seeking the mandatory training, this would amount to an undue burden. The federal government cannot mandate something, and simply refrain from providing the options for compliance. The city of Chicago attempted such an approach when the supreme court overturned their prohibition on handgun ownership. The city implemented various requirements that could not be met within the city, forcing applicants to travel outside the city at their own expense. As a result the city was rebuked in federal court, and told they could not legally do such. Beyond that matter, fees from applicants would never cover the expenses involved with the need for licensed instructors, facilities, insurance, and countless other matters. Those present on the forum who are licensed firearm instructors report classes for concealed carry permits already being filled to capacity and crowded, despite these classes being wholly optional. If training was made mandatory, this problem would be exacerbated greatly. Assuming no grandfathering provision for current firearm owners is included, that is approximately one hundred million individuals who would have god reason to seek out training. This would create a bottle necking scenario where wait times could quite feasibly be several months simply for an opening to be made available, to get the mandatory training necessary for their continued firearms ownership to be regarded as legal. And since no one has presented anything resembling codified standards as to what would amount to adequate training, there would be little point in discussing the matter further. Some might suggest training on par with what law enforcement officers receive would be adequate, but review by those more familiar with such standards reveals that they are actually abysmal. It really is no exaggeration to say that law enforcement officers are not highly trained professionals when it comes to the handling of firearms. More accurately, how does mandatory training improve said lives, when compared to training sought voluntarily.
