I am not interested in the slippery slope fallacy, so I am not taking the potential destruction of rights into account. Ensuring that competent shooters carry firearms serves to protect our rights, it does not in any remove rights from the responsible. There would not be a need to pay for additional training. That "training" would be accomplished through doing what they should be doing anyway, purchasing ammunition and practicing on a regular basis. For the sake of yourself and those around you, a person ought to be able to draw and use their weapon effectively. I took my M&P40 subcompact out those weekend, I can't shoot it nearly as well as my M&P45. So what does that mean? More practice. No its not. You require the shooter to hit a X sized target and Y yards. It is rather simple. Um.... no. My concern is not with gun owners, but those who carry loaded firearms in public. The only way to ensure they receive the proper training is by mandate. My brother carries a Sig P250 in 9mm, he can't hit the broad side of a barn. Yet he doesn't care. He carries it because he can. He plans to get his CCW. I have tried to show hm things, but he blows it off and refuses to take his pistol out and actually practice. The only way to ensure the proper training is obtained is through mandate. Just because people should does not mean that they do what they ought to do to better themselves. True, however the well regulated militia was not my argument. My argument is the justices suggested that carrying concealed weapons was not within the scope the 2nd Amendment.
Although there is no data to back up your claim that this is a problem, I like the idea of mandatory training. I would apply it to everyone not just firearms owners or people with concealed carry permits. Make it a required high school class. Today most people have never handled a firearm and their only exposure is through idiot shows on tv, some first hand experience will go a long way to shutting down the anti-gun loons. The problem - and why I will never support mandatory training in this political environment - is that the anti-gun freaks will try to make the training requirement so burdensome that it will be a defacto ban. Its a matter of trust, and I don't trust the govt in this issue. I would rather be around "untrained" people than have govt mandated hoops to jump through.
Well, that is a slippery slope. A fallacy. Of course, and tumors that go undiscovered are harmless as well. Doctors without necessary experience are harmless as long as no one dies. As are drunk drivers.
Not exactly direct comparisons, but properly adjusted: Tumors that aren't growing or metastasizing are harmless. Inexperienced doctors that don't practice on people are harmless. Drunk drivers who don't drive on public roads are harmless. It doesn't matter how bad of a shot a person is, if they aren't shooting around other people, they aren't a danger. As for the slippery slope argument, that isn't what DaveInFL was talking about. Strict requirements are actually a problem now, no movement necessary. Take a look at the great "Emily Gets Her Gun" series from the Washington Times. Training was one of the issues she encountered, since she had to travel out of the area to get the mandatory training. So no slippery slope is required, all that is required is for all states to follow DC's lead and it will effectively end private ownership in the US. Even if a few states in one region followed their lead, it would prevent most of the residents of that region from ever owning a weapon legally, even if the books do supposedly allow it.
Your response was not "properly adjusted". If it were, the proper text would be: Tumors that aren't CURRENTLY growing or metastasizing are harmless for now. Inexperienced doctors that don't CURRENTLY practice on people are harmless for now. Drunk drivers who aren't currently drunk are harmless for now. It doesn't matter how bad of a shot a person is, if they aren't shooting around other people, they aren't a danger until they do (which is why they carry to begin with). Like they say; "don't carry if you're not prepared to shoot". This is an appeal to emotion fallacy. You have taken one little item and inflated it into an unlikely event. The fact of the matter is that gun rights have never been so robust in modern times as they are right now. No fallacy will change that fact.
By that logic, every man is not a rapist, for now. Just having the potential to harm someone doesn't make a person a criminal, but attempting to create more restrictions sure treats people as if they were. Tell that to people in DC or New York. There are plenty of stupid gun control laws on the books already and plenty of areas with even more restrictive rules. If we stopped opposing them do you really think they wouldn't keep spreading?
So a tumor in the brain is harmless? I should probably tell that to my friend who lost sight in his right eye and retains 15% of his vision in his left eye. Um... no. Thats not how it works. They are harmless until they actually hit someone. Just as an incompetent shooter is harmless until they accidentally kill someone. The slippery slope is a fallacy. No one is suggesting a massive amount of training nor anything that will prevent the vast majority from obtaining a permit. My proposal is centered around what responsible people should already be doing, shooting their weapons in a proficient manner through practice. I don't need a mandate to practice. However there are some that do.
The problem its that the government will be the source of any such mandate and it has a very bad track record of creating ineffective and convoluted rules that only make things difficult. Do you really think the people who designed cool-down periods, the assault weapons ban, the border states sales limit reporting law, the short-barreled rifle law, the hollowpoint restriction and the various other crazy rules would create a reasonable version of what you're suggesting?
The very nature of freedom means to be free of government mandates for problems that do not exist. Totalitarian democracy demands that we control the lives of people through law. Liberal (classical) democracy does not. The very idea of passing laws to control activity that is not a problem or to control criminal activity that have the result of only effecting the law abiding is, in itself, absurd. Another problem with people that want to pass laws where there is no problem is that they believe that they are quite capable of handling the situation themselves but do not think others are which is simply arrogant, or possibly they do not trust themselves so do not trust others which means they are paranoid. No offense but, buy example, it is not a problem in this state, so why do you think it is a problem everywhere else?
Wrong again. You're logic is not analogous to mine. Look, your original observation was this:"inaccurate gun owners who don't fire in public are harmless." Wolverine then correctly showed the flaw in your argument with these analogies:"Of course, and tumors that go undiscovered are harmless as well. Doctors without necessary experience are harmless as long as no one dies. As are drunk drivers." His argument being that just because something is not active (in the case of a tumor), practicing (as in inexperienced doctors [or by implication, untrained gun owners]), or dangerous (as in drunk drivers), that they would not or could not necessarily be dangerous. The dangers are increased by the actions of those items. The majority of men are not rapists while the majority of brain tumors are dangerous to the person with it, the majority of doctors practicing in the wrong field of expertise could be dangerous, and the majority of drunks who drive are very dangerous. It's all a question of measure. You have chosen to ignore the relevancy of his logic in favor of applying it to a disanalogous argument. A clever straw man, but a straw man just the same. No one is trying to portray anyone as a criminal here. That is YOUR concoction. The fact of the matter is that gun rights have never been so robust in modern times as they are right now. No fallacy will change that fact.
If majority logic is legitimate, then the fact that most concealed carry owners, regardless of skill, never harm anyone makes any comparison to a drunk driver or tumors invalid as well. It was, by your logic, an invalid comparison in the first place to compare any weapons owner and a drunk driver or a tumor, since weapons owners, regardless of skill, rarely harm anyone. If danger is truly what is being compared, then we have to bring cars into the mix, since a person is far more likely to be harmed by a car than by a gun. Unskilled drivers are a much bigger risk. The current testing for drivers is very similar to the CCW training classes, requiring only very basic operations and rules. No real skill requirement is involved. Heck, you are more likely to die from falling down than from being shot, so we should require testing for people to be allowed to stand up. Fair enough. Still, the justification given for shooting requirements is because these people may do harm, with nothing harmful actually having been done. That is a lot like guilty until proven innocent. Right, so we have more rights now than in the 80s when no background checks were required and no waiting periods were imposed?
My argument throughout this thread is that the gun lobby should push for such restrictions. Why wait until something bad happens? Then the antis will be at the wheel.
The essence of individual freedom is being free from government mandates protecting us from trivial or improbable threats that exist only to grow the power of those who regulate them.
Yes it is a vast conspiracy to destroy our way of life and apple pie. Never mind the issue of incompetent people carrying loaded handguns in public spaces.
My argument does not impact the "law abiding". It impacts the incompetent. It does not impact me, you (assuming you are somewhat proficient with a handgun), or most CCW holders. It does however impact those who have no business drawing a loaded weapon in public.
You're obviously confused. This isn't "majority logic". This is YOUR logic. Wolverine first, then I, simply continued your OWN logic as to this. Let me explain. Go back to your first comment on this. You said:"inaccurate gun owners who don't fire in public are harmless." In other words, you're saying that inaccurate gun owners pose no harm as long as they don't shoot their weapon. Wolverine continued your logic, saying:"Of course, and tumors that go undiscovered are harmless as well. Doctors without necessary experience are harmless as long as no one dies. As are drunk drivers." You see, his logical analogies contain the same proviso in that the object is not harmful unless it is active. When you then modified his words to say this:"Tumors that aren't growing or metastasizing are harmless. Inexperienced doctors that don't practice on people are harmless. Drunk drivers who don't drive on public roads are harmless." I further helped your logic with this:"Tumors that aren't CURRENTLY growing or metastasizing are harmless for now. Inexperienced doctors that don't CURRENTLY practice on people are harmless for now. Drunk drivers who aren't currently drunk are harmless for now." You see, this is merely a more specific variation of your own logic. Nothing earth shattering here. I'm surprised you would even object to it. Perhaps you regret your somewhat narrow-minded original view. I don't know. No it's not. Not even close. We don't assume anyone is "guilty" when we require them to show proficiency before we allow them to drive on public roads. We also require that drivers carry insurance by law, but nobody assumes that we are all "guilty" as a justification. We have a number of mandated laws in this country, but the assumption of guilt is not a part of them. At least not in the sense that you are trying to portray. You have simply imposed an emotional appeal in your position where it does not belong. This is called an appeal to emotion fallacy. Well, we could certainly haggle as to what constitutes "modern times", but the main issue is the one that you put forth in that you see a trend of an erosion of gun rights. If this were to be factual then one would have to consider more than just background checks (which most gun owners, and even most NRA members, I believe, are in favor of), or waiting periods (which most States do not even have [do you live in CT?]), to discern a trend. We have had a repeal of an assault weapons ban, all but one State now allow concealed carry, we can now legally carry a gun into our National parks, DC and Chicago residents can now own hand guns, etc. Hardly a trend towards stricter controls, I'd say. What say you?
My argument is you don't know a thing about the shooter you denegrate. Maybe he is learning what is the effective range given his shooting skills. I know better not to try a 10% shoot to the head at 21 feet. I only found that out by shooting my piece. Plus your solution is another government solution to which you have no proof that it is even a problem.
I couldn't care less about the shooter's circumstances. Three and five yards, there is no legitimate reason to pepper the entire target. There is no legitimate reason for such a shooter to carry a loaded firearm in public. No one needs to die for it to be a problem. The very nature of the issue is a problem.
Ayuh,... Try as you might, yer still tryin' to manufacture a Problem that doesn't exist... You seems to think that if a shooter isn't as competent as yerself, they ain't good enough...
Um, no. As I have already stated more than once in the thread I do not expect people to shoot as I do. I expect them to do something other than pepper a target and three and five yards. The very fact that incompetent shooters carry loaded weapons on the streets is a problem. They need not amplify the issue by drawing, firing, and possibly hitting an innocent bystander for it to be a problem. I value my ability to carry a concealed weapon more than some other person's ability given that the other person my never take the time to practice.
