Standards for CCW or RKBA? Please read the whole thread before voting!

[Xringshooter]

I support the Vermont carry for what some may think is a nonsensical reasons.

If the RKBA is to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government, who is that government going to send their troops to first to disarm them? Maybe by using the list of those that have a weapons permit??? How many people have the permit and no weapon?? If no weapon, why get a permit. What about the BATFE list of FFLs? Go to the FFL's and confiscate the 4473's and any weapons and ammo in the store and then off to the purchasers home. I would think (I am probably wrong, because those that will try to take over don't necessarily think rationally) that not knowing how many weapons are out there would be a deterrent to the attempt to disarm the populace.

Just as I would think that (again probably wrong due to a criminals mind doesn't work the same as most peoples) not knowing who is carrying might make them stop and think before committing a crime.

My only evidence of this is anecdotal and came from talking to my father who spent 30 years as a prison guard (Rockview State Correctional Institution). The majority of inmates (with burglery armed robbery convictions) he talked to said that they would normally bypass a home or business if they thought that the owners had firearms in the house or business. They all said it wasn't worth taking a chance of getting shot.

I do agree that if someone is going to carry, concealed or open, they have the obligation to know what they are doing and accept the consequences of their actions.

Last comment, about the person that was not allowed to get a drivers license due to something mental but carried a firearm with him when he rode a bike.

I have known extremely smart people that I would never want to handle a firearm without loads and loads of training. They had absolutely no common sense. I've known people that were not as smart as some, but because of their vast experiences and great common sense, I would trust my life to them.

I would like to know the mental condition that precluded him getting a drivers license but could carrying a firearm. There is a block on the 4473 that addresses the mental capacity of the person purchasing the firearm. Was he subject to a mental disorder that could cause a physical disorder? Did someone give him the firearm not knowing his condition (possible firearm violation). Did a person give him the firearm knowing his condition (firearm violation). Did the FFL disregard the answers on the 4473 (firearm violation). Did the person lie on the form (firearm violation). Or, did the person just not have the ability to pass the drivers test (written and practical) but was able to perform everything else perfectly fine? If the last was the case, I don't see anything wrong with them having a firearm.

My 2 cents.

Ron

[The Drew]

Originally Posted by TonyF

I could cite at least ten or so VERY serious safety violations that I have personally witnessed myself or been informed of over the years. All by untrained gun owners. That leads me to believe that there are a great many more occuring and that there is a far greater potential for tragedy than anyone can imagine.

I will not dismiss *near misses* as grounds for proclaiming there isn't a problem.

Safety rule violations, no matter how serious, are NOT a problem unless they result in an ND or an injury or death. That doesn't mean however that proper safety rules shouldn't be taught and reinforced.

Only being able to cite 10 or so incidents "over the years" still leads me to the conclusion that there isn't a major problem with numbskulls.

[TonyF]

Originally Posted by The Drew

Safety rule violations, no matter how serious, are NOT a problem unless they result in an ND or an injury or death.

I strongly disagree.

If someone exhibiting poor and unsafe gun handling isn't corrected, the odds are only going to steadily increase that sooner or later they will experience an ND.

[The Drew]

Originally Posted by TonyF

I strongly disagree.

If someone exhibiting poor and unsafe gun handling isn't corrected, the odds are only going to steadily increase that sooner or later they will experience an ND.

The odds really are that eventually, we'll ALL experience an ND...

[JustinM]

Originally Posted by The Drew

Safety rule violations, no matter how serious, are NOT a problem

You're kidding, right? how could any safety violation concerning a gun not be a problem??

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by TonyF

Wow.

You know, these wonderful documents we inherited from our Founders were not created in a vacuum. And no, I'm not one of those *living, breathing document* pukes.

Would you concede the possibility, that if the Founders could have foreseen a 21st century America, where gun handling and marksmanship would not be passed on from father to son, that the 2A may not have been written in it's present form?

"WOW" in a good way I hope

Yes, I more than concede the possibility. In fact the Amendment provisions clearly point to the fact that they thought future changes would be needed. This is the true genius of the process. It is a living document, as has been said many times before.

However I must ask, with all respect, so what?

Since you have already conceded that you are not (or no longer) in favor of "Mandatory" training to exercise our right to carry we no longer have a argument as I find nothing wrong with all being as trained as much as possible. Guns are tools and as tool one should be trained in their proper use. I just refuse to concede to the government any additional powers over our rights.

We can get into what I think about "Tactical Training" if you like but as far as safety training goes, I'm all for it as long as it is not.....well you know

[phillyd2]

Originally Posted by The Drew

I would hope this is not the case with TonyF, and have been arguing without this thought in my mind. I believe he is sincere, although I feel he is irrationally biased by his first hand experience.

I too think Tony is sincere in his posts. Lets not be so cynical as to question his (or any others) motives. He has handled himself with grace and dignity against almost universal opposition. This is the real meaning of bravery. Hats off to all sides who gave as well as they received in this very interesting exchange of idea.

Dave

[The Drew]

Originally Posted by jmateer

You're kidding, right? how could any safety violation concerning a gun not be a problem??

Please read my entire statement...

My point is that if you break a safety rule and nothing happens, no harm, no foul. It happens, sometimes because of ignorance, sometimes because of absentmindedness.

I don't mean that we should disregard safety rules. Just that breaking them doesn't in and of itself constitute a "problem" that training can solve.

Most people know what the safety rules are, and either disregard them because of arrogance or break them accidentally. "Training" will DO NOTHING to improve this situation.

Some people will never take their firearm seriously enough unless they do have an ND. Hopefully when that happens, the muzzle will be in a direction that nobody gets hurt.

[NineseveN]

Originally Posted by The Drew

Some people will never take their firearm seriously enough unless they do have an ND. Hopefully when that happens, the muzzle will be in a direction that nobody gets hurt.

That's why the 4 rules are layered. You have to break more than one of them in order to actaully harm anything.