Same...exact...thing...with...guns. AKA my point exactly.


You're either naive or just ignoring what I said when I said that you're using the wrong term for something irrelevant to the issue at hand. BTW, what design features are specifically used for firing from a distant concealed position that are not also suitable for firing at a distant target from an exposed position? The typical rifle used by US military snipers is a Remington Model 700, hardly a specialty weapon.

 

See, but you're wrong. A person with the mental capacity of a chimp can preach about the end of the world and it's not going to hurt anyone. Give that same mental midget a handgun and there is the potential for grievous bodily harm.

 

If you have the mental midget preaching convincingly to other mental midgets they can take pitchforks and stab an entire race/religion/haircolor to death. It's happened over and over throughout history. Or should charismatic people not have the freedom of speech because they can influence people to do bad things?

 

Again, it's not the preaching that's killing people... It's the people picking up pitchforks. There is intent there. There doesn't have to be intent for a firearm to kill someone. Unlike a car, you don't have to demonstrate any skill or knowledge to own a firearm. This is why I'm for licensing, just like cars. You should be required to demonstrate that you can handle a firearm before being allowed to purchase one.

The only way to harm someone with speech is to be loud enough to cause a physical reaction.

 

Hitler did not fight in WWII on any front lines but look at home many people he killed by his voice.





Good in theory, when you require a gun safety course you are creating choke-points that can be controlled buy outside influence. Im not talking about the dumb asses who think they can hold a gun one hand or shoot like a gangsta sideways.

Jane doe wants to get a handgun but needs a license to do so. She was a victim of a violent crime and the powers at be think she is going to use the gun for revenge and deny her safety license needed to own a gun. Not because she could not practice gun safety. see what im saying?


Once you go down that path it will never be lifted. oh and of course the courses have fees, and those fees increase and are not lifetime. So it sounds like you want to have a drivers license system for firearms?

Im all for gun safety but i can see where it can go wrong and be controlled.

 

You're making the same mistake 187 is. His actual voice didn't kill anyone. Merely saying the words didn't cause anyone's death. He had to say particular things to particular people. Those other people (not Hitler) then took action on their own. Hitler intended to harm people. He wanted his speech to be harmful. He didn't accidentally kill anyone. Someone else didn't pick up his words and hurt someone with them. He didn't forget to clear his throat and accidentally kill someone while showing them his speech. All of these thing can happen with a firearm. You've seen the videos of people trying to parallel park and running into stuff. You've seen the videos of people jumping off their roofs and missing the pile of mattresses by 5 feet. Do you really want those people, who live next door, accidentally discharging a S&W 500 through their wall, your wall, your TV and into your child who was watching cartoons?

I'll always support laws that require some sort of basic knowledge to own a firearm. I'm not talking about being able to make a 6 round 1" grouping at 50 feet, just basic stuff like don't look down the barrel to see if there's a bullet in the chamber.

 

You can't eliminate irresponsibility and stupidity with a licensing program. So your entire reasoning is flawed. And you're splitting hairs on whether his actual voice or the effects of Hitler's speech caused people to die. Charismatic people can convince a lot of people otherwise unwilling to do something to do that thing for the better or worse. I could do more damage with my voice than I could ever do with a gun. It is easy to talk people into things.

So, should I get a license to talk to stupid people, or should people need to get a license verifying that they're not stupid before they can listen to me?

Here at least you don't need a license to own a car, just to operate it on the road. To own or even drive a car in a field somewhere doesn't require a license. And cars kill more people than guns and are generally taken much less seriously while being operated. AND the right to possess cars isn't guaranteed by the Constitution. wink.gif

 

Wow, you just went completely off the grid with that whole post. Nobody's saying you're going to eliminate anything. You don't eliminate irresponsibility with licensing. However, you do guarantee that they have more knowledge than a rock.

Regarding speech, I'm not splitting hairs at all. You simply fail to grasp the analogy. I don't know if you really don't get it or if you're just doing the whole "gun nut", "I don't care what you say, I just want my gun" routine.

Allow me to explain... If a charismatic person uses speech to incite someone to act violently and cause harm, it's because they intended that to happen. If someone points a gun at another person, pulls the trigger and causes harm, it's because they intended that to happen. These to examples parallel each other.

However, unlike speech, which isn't going to accidentally hurt anyone, a firearm can accidentally harm someone. Get it?

 

As i said before it is Good in theory, when you require a gun safety course or licensing you are creating choke-points that can be controlled buy outside influence.

And my example still stands,
Jane doe wants to get a handgun but needs a license to do so. She was a victim of a violent crime and the powers at be think she is going to use the gun for revenge and deny her safety license or licence to own a gun. Not because she could not practice gun safety.



So i understand it you would like people to have to get a license to own a firearm? If in the simplest of terms that's it and demonstrate that you had a safety course that's fine but that sets up a sticky slope of well who can give official safety courses, and that creates the issues of control.




a gun on a table will never hurt anyone. it is the gun owners responsibly to ensure the firearm is stored in a safe matter. it all comes down to we cant legislate out the stupid or ignorant.

 

Simple... courses are taught by anyone who is a licensed dealer. They're paid an amount determined by the government issuing the license so they all charge the same for the course. The course is the same anywhere that you take it. When you complete the course, the dealer electronically notifies the licensing authority that you've completed the course, just like smog testers do when you get your car smogged. Occasionally, the dealers are audited to make sure they're actually teaching the course and not just "rubber stamping" everyone. You then get your license right there at the dealer and purchase your gun. Everything else stays the same as it is now. There's no "choke point" because there is no mechanism for denying the license. Once you take the class and pass any background checks that are or are not currently required, you get the license. Yes, you would have to pay for the license so that it doesn't come out of taxes, but you'd never have to renew it. You take the course once and the license is good forever.






You just proved my point. It's the gun owner's responsibility. The gun owner should therefore have some type of training before buying. You can't legislate stupidity, but you can give people the basic knowledge needed to handle a dangerous tool.