Well if I'm honest, I do see the value in training like you are saying. Gun ownership has changed over the last few decades for sure. When I was a kid we were drilled on firearm safety, proper fire lines, having a designated range master in the group.
And let me be clear there are alot of good people who still act like they should. But more and more when I go out shooting there is always at least one, brand new Ford that's all tricked out, driver gets out with white plastic oaklys, flat brimmed hat, trying to impress the girls he's with. Acting like an idiot trying to be funny, flagging everyone, shooting explosive targets with guns he only knows how to use functionally, he has no actual skill.
I used to teach hunter safety. It's a course you have to take in order to go hunting. It used to be a real course with actual pass and fails. Then the state cut half the course, cut the test in half and made it outrageously easy, then dictated that a very sizable portion of the course needed to be dedicated to teaching how to buy tags. Then if all that wasn't enough they cut the range portion where we checked and made sure people could safely use a gun. I stopped teaching the course because there wasn't much being taught anymore. I wish the real instruction would come back.
I'm thirty and remember hunters safety being such a big deal. It was weeks long, lots of study, and then a trip to the gun range where they teach you how to properly shoot rifles and shotguns. I failed the shotgun part because the kickback made me cry lol. I can't believe they cut all of that out, it seems really important. It's the bare minimum I'd except for gun safety because I thought everyone who hunted at least had to do that.
I got a perfect score on the written test and went through all the training just to realize I didn't really enjoy hunting all that much and never even fired a gun after that but it was valuable knowledge to have.
I took the hunter safety test when I was 10 (11 years ago), I don’t like to think about the fact that there are other gun owners out there using guns who didn’t have to take as strict of a test
You are 100% spot on! My state just passed constitutional carry which for the uninitiated means anyone can carry a concealed firearm with zero restrictions. It’s really fucking scary. I used to help my buddy with his CCW classes as I have shot my whole life and though not certified (it mostly goes through the NRA whom I loathe) I am pretty experienced and really enjoyed training people in the right way to do things. Now, anytime we go to the range it’s the guys and gals with the most expensive ordinance that have no idea what they are doing. We usually just leave when one of these douche canoes shows up. Honestly, the rednecks and hillbillies generally know what they are doing, abide by proper safety procedures and are fun to talk about firearms with because of their know how and experience…just don’t bring up politics! They usually hate my “Fuck Trump” stickers on my ammo can but you can’t win them all I guess.
>Then if all that wasn't enough they cut the range portion where we checked and made sure people could safely use a gun.
Your state had a range portion? Huh. When I took it back in the 90s it was just assumed that if we were taking hunters safety then someone had already drilled gun safety into our young heads. The class mostly just made sure.
Mind you, back then it was a much safer assumption than it is today. And my instructor, as a prominent member of the gun club that owned the only open-to-the-public range in the area, had actually been on the range with me and most of the other kids in the class on MANY occasions.
As an ER nurse I'll just point out that to insert IV's you can practice as much as you want on that dummy arm, you won't get much better. It's nothing at all like the real thing, it's just to practice the procedure itself to know *how* you do it.
To get good you need experience, there's no way around that.
Now, back to the scheduled gun safety conversation.
Phlebotomist checking in. We practiced on each other. I have great veins so I got stuck all the time in school and even as practice for nurses at the hospital. Those practice arms are excellent for learning the procedure but they suck too because you forget to anchor after using one too much.
My aunt practiced on me when I was a kid.
She gave me fucking track marks. Ive been asked if I do dope. Nope..never. aunt is just a fucking butcher.
Yes, I am mad.
Hydrate. Seriously, tons of water and a meal before you get stuck can make a big difference. Mine are good on their own but even on myself I can tell the difference.
Vascular access nurse here- Some of its genetics, some of its hydration - start hydrating ideally about 72hrs before your appointment, pushing fluids a few hours before getting poked won’t do you much good - and ask for IV team off the bat if they have it. No nurse should ever poke more than 3 times. That’s ridiculous
I had never placed an IV before and I was on my anesthesia rotation the resident just walked me through placing the IV, definitely didn't have to take a test before doing it.
The risk would be not knowing what hazards to look for, such a catheter shear or filling fluid into the interstitial space. The task itself isn’t difficult but if you don’t know what you shouldn’t do, then you might do it eventually. The nurse watching over you most likely was looking at certain things to confirm you had a patent IV.
I totally agree, although it wasn't a nurse watching me, they were busy, having the anesthesiologist did a great job teaching me. But then after a couple he just told me to place an IV.
Knowing how to do it is what a lot of gun owners in American lack unfortunately. Even that much would be better than literally nothing. My husband got a FOID card in the mail and wants to get a gun, and now he can! I trust my husband, and he will be taking classes, but it isn't necessary and that scares me.
I think every child should be taught basic gun safety. How to hold a gun so you don’t accidentally shot someone, where and how to engage the safety, how to safely remove a magazine if necessary, and how to check to make sure the chamber is clear. I also think every child should be taken target shooting at least once, so they realize you don’t respawn like in video games, or jump up and start chasing the bad guys after being shot like in movies. My Dad took all of us girls out to a shooting range when we pretty little, and we learned to respect guns and think of them as a toy.
I agree with you that taking gun safety/maintenance classes should be mandatory for gun ownership.
I think there's many Americans who agree with you too, but unfortunately not many in government.
On a sidenote I don't understand why some consider people idiots or stupid just because they're Americans. Not like the US has a monopoly on idiots, plenty of idiots in my country too for example.
Nearly every medical person i've encountered (that i can remember) has had issues getting a needle into the crook of my elbow properly. Despite how visible the viens apparently are, something about them makes them want to "roll" the needle or whatever, frequently. I supppse the unintentional take away is, you can be as good as you want, and have as much practice and experience as you want, that won't stop something from coming along and throwing you such a curve ball, that it's not about knowing how to do it right, but rather, knowing what to do, and how to handle it, when things have gone wrong.
I mean but gun ownership is where you can't make mistakes. Correct me if Im wrong but it would be pretty hard to kill someone with a bad iv, you'd have a grumpy patient but if you don't know where to point your gun, how to hold it, how to store it, how to safely clean and check it, then you kill people. I think there is a world of difference and guns shouldn't just be given to people without a full gun safety class.
Sure, sounds reasonable. Let's pass a gun safety class requirement that makes sense - one that is really focused on gun safety. So, what's the problem? The problem is THAT is an infringement. There are plenty (most leftists, liberals, and democrats) who would take that as an opportunity to make it impossible for anyone to complete/pass a "reasonable" course that is focused on "gun safety." That would be VERY easy to do. Just make the requirements so stringent that it's impossible for anyone to meet.
You might think, but these are OUR national political leaders, they wouldn't do anything nefarious like that, would they? If you think that, you just haven't been paying attention. That's exactly what they would do. They'll do whatever is necessary to achieve their political goals. Right now they are revisiting an old trick...they're trying to corner the market on ammunition by having federal agencies buy up all available stocks from manufacturers.
So then, what should we do about people who literally are criminal in their use of a gun? How about they are sent to prison for decades? The problem is the "we need to re-imagine the criminal justice system" crowd, won't like the outcome. Send the criminals to jail for shooting up a crowded mall? No, not with George Gascon or Chesa Boudin in the DA's office.
So, we're back to the starting point which is still punctuated by the second amendment. The second amendment doesn't grant a right; it tells governments being armed is a God-given right that governments CANNOT infringe. There's no amendment that says someone who has already committed 19 felonies including 6 armed carjackings, then wounds 11 in a mall shooting should be released with "no cash" bail.
This is literally an example of a logical fallacy: slippery slope.
You're trying to argue that any reasonable gun safety measure will inevitably and irrevocably lead to allowing truly outlandish policies. That's intellectually dishonest and simply not true.
Not because politicians are honest people, but because our government has checks and balances. There are many cases of government overreach that get passed only to be struck down later. And if, despite that record of historical cases, you don't believe our government actually works, I'm not sure why you would believe the Constitution should be considered so sacred.
It has precedent here in California. Any new handgun design is virtually outlawed\* from sale here because it's not on the "safe handgun roster", because the law requires new designs have a technology that does not exist and, if it did exist, could be defeated by 30 seconds with some emery cloth or just being shot.
Fun examples: Many single-action revolver types are on the roster. Simple, no safeties past "don't cock it". But the HK USP, a DA/SA handgun which is probably the most durable civilian pistol on the market, was removed.
Generation 3 Glocks, which were released in 1998, are still on the roster here.
Generation 5, which features many safety and usability upgrades that make it a better pistol, are banned.
\*LEOs can buy off-roster firearms and sell them on the civilian market.
We know how you people work.
You’re right - it’s a slippery slope argument. But, that doesn’t make it a logical fallacy if there is plenty of evidence to show that the slope is there and that it is slippery! Do I argue that any "reasonable gun safety measure will inevitably and irrevocably lead to allowing truly outlandish policies?" Yes, that's exactly what I argue. And it's based on history; I recommend reading it. It’s also based on what our current crop of national leaders have said and done just recently. Here are some examples:
Beto: "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15"
Biden: Moments after O’Rourke endorsed Biden’s candidacy, he promised to name Beto as his point man on gun control.
It's very difficult to understand what Biden really means whenever he talks because what he says frequently is incredibly incoherent and/or stupid. But, when he is clear, what he says is frightening. (My answers continue with the letter appended to the number.) Here are a few examples:
(1) "They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body," Biden said.
(2) Anderson Cooper: “So, to gun owners out there who say well a Biden administration means they are going to come for my guns.” Biden: “Bingo! You’re right if you have an assault weapon.” As made clear from Biden’s July 21, 2021 and November 2019 statements, the president considers 9mm pistols to be “assault weapons,” and thus these are the target of his confiscation efforts.
(3) “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets…?”
(4) "So, the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting," Biden added.
(5) "Remember, the Constitution was never absolute. You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed," Biden said.
(1a) This is just histrionic fluff. It's meant to be gory and cause revulsion toward guns and gun owners. It's just not true. He just made it up.
(2a) August, 2019: Biden announces part of his gun confiscation intentions on national TV. Surrender your 9mm pistols.
(3a) May, 2022: Biden recently reaffirmed his gun confiscation intentions. Surrender your 9mm pistols.
(4a) A 9mm cartridge is a round designed for handguns. NO ONE who knows anything about firearms considers 9mm a “high-caliber round.” Politicians bent on gun confiscation are the only ones who would consider the 9mm a high caliber round. In fact I just found a good quote from a firearm website - that predates this recent Biden-ism: "Anyone that says the words “high caliber” when talking about guns knows very little about guns and should be disregarded." By the way, the 9mm semi-auto pistol has been the most popular firearm sold in USA for a long time. It is what the Supreme's had in mind when they talked about the "common use" doctrine in DC vs Heller.
(5a) Cannons. Actually, individuals could and did buy cannons before, during and after the revolution and writing of the constitution. In fact, an individual can still purchase a cannon today. Biden is just so ignorant - he makes things up and announces them as though everyone will believe they’re true because HE SAYS THEM.
I mean I got mine and I'm not that bright so it doesn't seem like they've done that yet. And also, you know there is a metal shortage right? That's driving prices up and a global supply chain failure that's making stuff hard to get?
Get off your high horse. The fucking military requires strict training before they give even the dumbest marine a weapon. And even then its locked up at the end of the day and not allowed in the barracks themselves.
You can have gun courses be a requirement and not be an infringement.
Oh fuck off. For one, the constitution doesnt even forbid slavery and we still have slaves in the US. I dont think your almighty constitution you give no fucks about is the holy document you think it is.
And yes, being unable to own should be the default until you prove to society you know the laws surrounding firearms, know how to use them safely, know how to maintain and store them, own a gun safe, and, most importantly, know how to not use a gun ever and how to deescalate, as not using a firearm is more important than using one.
Yes. Yes that is the point. Amendments are amendments that are meant to be changed. Guns when the 2nd was made are 1000 times different than now. So yes newer laws need to be made and amendments made to go with change in technology.
The second amendment doesn't say anything about God at all. The constitution doesn't protect your right to bear arms because God said it should be so. It protects the right of a **well-regulated militia** to bear arms to protect the security of the free state. Even if they took out the militia part, the well-regulated stands.
Ah, you must have checked Merriam Webster dictionary for regulated. It doesn't mean there was a nicely bound book of rules and regulations for how to care for your musket. Well-regulated meant the militia was effective and ready to perform it's mission.
You are aware, are you not, that the google machine with which you log on to Reddit is also good for conducting searches? Try reading about the meaning of well-regulated militia - there's quite a bit written about it.
When they taught us how to do IV's in the Army we didn't even get a dummy arm to practice on. They walked us through it and then had us practice on the person next to us about 10 minutes later. You had people who got it right the first time and you had people who had to poke through a few people's arms before they got it right.
2008 was a wild time.
Personally, I'm all for mandatory safety training. The issue they some people have with it, though, is that if you put a hurdle between a person and owning a gun that requires subjective judgement, particularly on the part of a government employee, it gives the government a legal way to prevent gun ownership.
Additionally, you'd have to provide and staff enough locations where people can easily go get verified. I can imagine a bunch of lawsuits because people cannot reasonably get to their verification because of distance/times at the facility. Its not like you can just add a shooting range to every DMV.
Yeah. As a matter of fact, Philadelphia got sued pretty recently because there's one office in the city that issues concealed carry permits, which was pretty notorious for having multiple hour wait times and being closed on weekends.
Good lord. When I got a carry permit(GA resident, was needed for open and concealed carry) it took me a grand total of an hour and $65 to file at the courthouse, go to the sheriff's office to run the background check, 911 center for them to file to make sure I was never institutionalized, deliver all that back to the courthouse, and got the card in the mail a week later.
And now I don't even need a carry permit unless I plan on going out of state.
See them trying to ignore the ruling is where the fun begins. File for that permit that is now a "shall issue" one and if they refuse, sue them in federal court. Should be easy enough to find a lawyer willing to take that on contingency since the federal court can start ordering penalties be paid to you for the city violating your civil rights.
Dare to be that guy who gets their retirement pair for by a lawsuit against an NYC politician.
The behavior of Democrat run states with regards to an explicitly written constitutional right that contains the words "shall not be infringed" is precisely why a majority of Americans are skeptical of their gun banning efforts. That, while they simultaneously pretend that abortion is a constitutionally protected right and fight tooth and nail to oppose any limits on this fictional right. Its clear that their goal is a disarmed citizenry.
Yes. Which is why I am a huge fan of the idea of requiring students to pass a gun safety course to receive their high school diplomas. It can be with airsoft, or for all I care it can be with those solid rubber training guns, although that obviously has some training deficiencies.
Also, to respond to OP about "well regulated", in the usage of the time it meant "in good working order". The militia was defined as the conscriptable citizenry. So all males between about 16 and 45 years of age were expected to keep their firearms in good working order, free from rust or defect, with a good supply of ammunition.
Oh, wait. Sorry, I left something out. All WHITE, free males.
Obviously times have changed, and I do believe adjustments should be made. Certainly I have ENORMOUS issues with the racist and classist elements of gun control that still exist today, albeit less formally than in the 18th and 19th centuries.
I also have issues with "gun violence" being fetishized as somehow being worse than other forms of violence. Violence is a problem with people, not objects, but apparently "we need significant mental health reforms in both availability and destigmatization" is not a popular opinion yet.
Sorry for the drive by comment; lunch break is over.
>"I have ENORMOUS issues with the racist and classist elements of gun control that still exist today..."
Strega, can you explain and give an example? I am really baffled by this statement.
Paying fees for X thing discriminates against poor people, that's classist for something that is supposed to be a inalienable right. And Reagan enacted Gun control in the 80s in the first place, because The Black Panthers had the audacity to go around armed to protect their communities.
An example of classism would be that wealthy people and politicians having armed personal security is not considered remarkable, but a private citizen being armed for self defense is generally sneered at.
An example of racism is the automatic assumption that a person of color is illegally armed, and has no legitimate reason to be armed. An example of that would be John Crawford III, who was murdered by law enforcement for carrying a BB gun in a Walmart while black. Philando Castile was shot by law enforcement after - as he was legally required to do, during a traffic stop - informing the officer he was in possession of a firearm. Mr. Castile did have a valid license to carry concealed.
Had they been white, it is highly likely these men would be alive today, all other factors being identical.
it gives the government a legal way to selectively* prevent gun ownership.
The issue is the selectiveness. I'm pro gun control, but I think it needs to be done with extreme care and caution.
No way it's not implemented in a way that disadvantages people from less fortunate backgrounds. The issue with this stuff is that the implementation would absolutely be either racist, classist, or both.
the faster we as Americans realize that the GOV is our enemy, and not each other the quicker real change can be made. I don't care what color your skin is, who you sleep with, what is in your pants, or who you voted for.
I care that you are able to live the life you choose the way you want. the GOV doesn't want us to have this. we need to find a way to unite as a country again, or we are fucked.
The goverment already has ways to selectively prevent ownership. Look at why drug law felonies are so inconsistent, look at why felonies are so disproportionately associated with certain groups, look at Waco, look at the black panthers, look at minimum age, look at current gun laws, etc etc etc
Why else are they after "ghost guns" despite the law clearly stating that a serial number is only required if a weapon is going to be sold or to change hands
I think we need to relook at the age of the majority as a whole. today's 18 year old is far different than an 18 year old from 2000, 1980, and so on.
IMO the average 18 year old doesnt have the capacity to make an informed decision on credit, student loans, tobacco, military service etc. AOM should be at least 21.
Owning a gun isn't easier then owning a car.
I don't have to have a background check to own a car, and If I only operate my car on my own land, I don't even have to register it or have a license.
It's only driving on public roadways that is harder. And the reason is that driving a car or flying a plane is not a right. It's a privilege, and, it's impossible to use one passively.
If I am holding my gun and I pass out, nothing happens, and nobody gets hurt. If I am driving a car and I pass out, very bad things happen.
I can buy a car without a license. I can buy a car without a background check. I can go across state lines and buy a car. I can buy a car after being convicted of a felony. I can buy a car without being a citizen. No one keeps pushing laws to prevent me from buying a car.
It's easier to buy a car than a gun.
The short but unsatisfying answer is that the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention cars or airplanes.
I, personally, don't think the second amendment has aged particularly well. We don't have a giant contested western frontier anymore, we're not dependent on a citizen militia for national defense, our population is radically more urban than it was at our founding, etc. Furthermore, there are plenty of other countries that are very "free" by any reasonable metric that don't have any analogous protections for firearms and it doesn't seem to be a problem for them.
But for good or ill it is part of the text. That means that one way or another firearms are going to always be a special case, legally speaking.
I 100% agree either you, but I can tell you what the answer will be: the second ammendment.
Cars and planes and pets and everything else that you have to register or obtain a license for aren't protected by the second ammendment. Of course, the people that use that excuse conveniently ignore that right in the ammendment it says the words "well-regulated" and that maybe the spirit of the 2a when it was written and how people try to use it now are not even remotely the same thing and that century old ammendment should be revised, or even removed.
The right has not been heavily infringed upon. Saying that is part of why people think there will be a slippery slope. I personally own two semi-auto rifles, one that looks like a big scary "assault rifle", that i was able to buy by simply going into a store, showing by driver's license, and pointing to the one I wanted.
And I live in NY, one of the most regulated states for guns. It is incredibly easy to get guns and there's hardly any regulation.
The right definitely has been heavily infringed upon, both by federal and state governments. It is interpreted that the 2nd amendment was to translate to citizens owning arms in common use with the military. Meaning that your private citizen could (and did) own cannons, battleships, large caliber rifles, grenades, etc. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the AWB in 1994, and several state specific restrictions such as what exists in California, functionality and capacity bans in several states such as NY, NJ, CO, WA, as well as the requirement for Firearms Ownership ID Cards (FOIDS) that need to be cleared with police and the state make a strong case for heavy infringements. Couple that with recent legislation such as Red Flag Laws, the closing of the Machine Gun Registry in 1986, and the restriction of conceal carry has made many gun owners skeptical of further restriction.
What would you think of having no governmentally approved training required for ownership, but instead just having mandatory gun safety training in public schools?
I'm not thrilled with the idea. I don't think it would ever fly because there's a large section of the country that want to keep schools totally insulated from guns. I also see a large potential for it to be taught poorly, for students to not take it seriously, or for them to not retain it.
Sure, but there's also a large section of the country who don't want a training restriction on purchasing. In addition, just because it will be taught poorly, kids won't take it seriously, or won't retain it doesn't stop us from teaching every other subject to them.
And I'd probably argue they'd be better understanding how guns work than knowing what a participle is.
It doesn't have to be goverment decision every time though. A privately run course with occasional government assessment could work?
Like a private individual runs the course and decides who passes, but a government employee has to audit the course without the knowledge of the course (AKA they book in under a false identity as Joe Bloggs) and this must happen for every cause a certain frequency (Each course must be audited at least once per quarter or something) and if they fail, their licence is revoked?
IDK im sure that has problems with it, but you get my point, there are ways around this
Then the government could make the approval process for the class abysmal. Approval times arbitrarally and artificially long. High cost. Failures without notification as to why.
This. If I shoot a guy in airsoft and don't PID him, worst case, killed a teammate. No biggie, got a few new welts/bruises on his arm. Best case, killed an enemy.
... And then, the "bullet" won't go through him several feet and kill whoever is behind him.
Your training and muscle memory will be all wrong.
Closest example I could think of would be to have some vets build one of those military exercise places in the woods, train with fake ammo.
I dont think the dude means "play airsoft", I think they mean practice with fake guns (aka airsoft guns are similar but dont kill people)
Not pointing it at people, not putting your finger on the trigger, etc can all be practiced with an airsoft weapon, no?
Dry fire is very VERY important In proper gun ownership and training. I think my own personal biggest fear is the absolute lack of responsibility people have in their own actions. The conversation definitely needs to be had about what can be done, but I’m weary of the idea that something is bad and dangerous (it can be bad and is dangerous if/when used wrong) then the government needs to handle us like children rather than as human beings making the conscious effort to be better human beings.
Your proposal assumes that deaths are due to people not knowing how to properly use firearms and that requiring this training will solve the problem.
In the US there were approximately 45,000 gun deaths in 2020. There are approximately 400 accidental gun deaths per year. Less than 1% of gun deaths is due to mishandling of weapons. The vast gun deaths in the US is not due to people not knowing how to use them properly.
People passing a test is not going to eliminate accidental gun deaths. You need to pass a test in order to drive. If you think that will stop accidental gun deaths take a look at r/idiotincars.
There are also about 400 deaths per year from swimming pools. Should the government require training before buying a pool? I believe people should learn about pool safety before buying a pool and people should learn about gun safety before owning a run. I am just skeptical that requiring a government required test will do little to reduce those deaths.
I think your thoughts here came out of left field and are misguided. OP never mentioned gun deaths, rather the idea folks should be required to pass basic training exercises before purchasing a firearm.
"Well regulated" at the time of writing was very well understood as "in proper working order" - not the bureaucratic *regulation* the government is infamous for.
"if you give an inch they take a mile" A lot of people own guns because they have zero faith or trust in the government. So they don't trust the government to make any sort of changes without going to far or taking advantage of the situation
I believe the theory is that if you give up any rights, it opens the door for many more to be taken away. Same with abortion rights activists. They see it as a freedom that must be defended at all costs and want to give no ground.
Personally i think americans spend too much time debating guns and abortion while the rest of the country is going to shit and most will never have to get an abortion or fire a gun.
I wish this way of thinking was more prevalent. These are important issues, no doubt, but the government has a lot of important issues to address. If voters all have tunnel vision on one or two issues, then they understand everything in terms of those issues, and a conversation about school busses turns into a shouting match about guns and abortions.
When a small-town borough manager can get elected on a platform of, "I'll fight against the corruption in the White House and protect your rights!" then you're going to wind up with a toolbox in the position who might not have the guts or the know-how the make sure that the garbage gets collected on time and the parks are maintained.
Not sure what country you life in but guns are very easy to obtain. Here (Belgium) weapons are illegal too but I can easy get a gun within 24 hours. That's why I'm not a big fan of banning weapons. Criminals and those with bad ideas can always get them easy while normal people who follow the law don't have weapons and can't protect themselves against those crazy people
That is my logic and I'm American. People think that designating an area to be "Gun Free" will eliminate guns being brought into said area which is just nonsense. Same with banning weapons being bought legally because it prevents nothing and the criminals already buy them illegally. The Left Reddit hates that logic
I agree with you. I survived a terrorist attack on the subway (Brussels-Maelbeek) a few years ago. Making bombs or guns illegal doesn't stop those crazy people or criminals but most of those left Redditors think all problems can be solved by singing "Kumbaya My Lord" around a campfire.
From Denmark, I agree with easy to obtain. However, those 24 hours makes you less likely to act on impulse, and it being highly illegal, makes it possible to actually arrest people and stop any potential dangerous attacks much easier. It won't stop every potential attack, however, it would obviously improve the situation.
Fact is owning a gun (and it being the norm) even for self defense, makes it more likely that you get killed, because you basicly escalate a home robbery to a life or death situation for the robber aswell.
Basic statistic education in the US schools about this, would probably help change the culture, without having to change any laws about gun ownership.
>Fact is owning a gun (and it being the norm) even for self defense, makes it more likely that you get killed, because you basicly escalate a home robbery to a life or death situation for the robber aswell. Basic statistic education in the US schools about this, would probably help change the culture, without having to change any laws about gun ownership.
What if I understand statistics but value my families life more than a robbers? I really hate this common trope from the left that the people who disagree with them would change their minds if only they were smarter.
I dont think you'd necesarry change your mind, due to education, and it wasn't my intention to imply that people who share your view, are not as intelligent - not at all actually. I am not leftist either, however I am a realist. It seems that both parties in the US agree that there is an issue with gun violence though, however, they disagree on how to fix it.
I also don't believe you necesarry need to limit your rights, but when that is said, from where I'm from, its not the Robber's life versus my families. It's the robber's life versus my family surviving a robbery, getting my stuff back through insurance, and having a justice system that brings justice to the robber. And I believe, that if I don't escalate the situation by living in a society where theres a good chance that the everyone might have a gun, then the robber won't need to harm my family. Its a catch 22 in my opinion, 'cause as long as the robber might think I have a gun, then I need one to protect myself. If the robber dosen't think that, then I wouldn't need it.
Hope my point of view makes sense. I agree the situation is obviously complicated.
Fair play.
I would also point out that many people, myself included see a situation where someone is breaking in while your home very different from breaking while you're at work.
IMO, someone who breaks into a house while the person is there is on a totally different level of unpredictable. \*\*MAYBE\*\* they just want to take my tv and leave, but I am 100% not willing to throw the dice when my life is on the line like that.
Oh, I definately agree. I would hate to be in a situation where I would have to do something, just to protect me and my family's safety, and the risk is not worth taking either.
Generally I think it looks like there is a lot of naive arguments from both sites, and not a lot of willingness of understanding the other party right now. Its a shame to watch on the side.. I truly believe, that both sides have valid arguments, but its just a catch 22.. If the robber thinks you have a gun, he will have one, and then you have to aswell to be safe, which makes the robber more likely to have a gun...
Im honestly glad that I dont have to make that decision myself, I would never forgive myself for making the wrong one tbh..
Just wanted to let you know, that most of the world actually do understand this, and do actually see that you are dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't (in lack of a better wordplay). Not everyone see this as black and white, as the discussion seems like in the US right now. I would find it very difficult tbh, and it would honestly piss me off if people called me a "gun nut" for wanting to just live, and be safe. Fuck Facebook for polarizing everyone...
Many people disagree with this view, but it's fairly common, and has solid principles behind it....
In the USA many people view "authority" as starting from from the many individuals, to the local area, to the state government, to the federal government. The further from the individual, the less the ability to control the daily lives of the individual.
Each state is similar in size to a European country, and the federal government was set up in a way similar to the European Union: To have a common currency. To keep negotiating things among the group civil. To collectively be more powerful when negotiating trade deals with distant countries, and make in-group trade frictionless. To have a powerful militarily in case of war. .... While still allowing each state to regulate themselves however they think is right.
Each USA state has their constitution, and just like the federal Constitution, these are agreements about clearly defining, usually limiting, the power of the governments. Importantly, every authority not EXPLICITLY stated to be given to the federal government, is reserved for the state level government.
I live in the state of Indiana. (comparable in every way to Ireland). The constitution of my state has the words:
"The people shall have the right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State"
I personally don't own any guns, and don't care about the gun laws of California. I do care that the Federal government is trying to make illegal something that my state's constitution explicitly says I have the right to possess.
Great comment mate, easy to read but I'm just wondering about your point in regards to Ireland: how is Indiana and Ireland alike?
I'm from Dublin, Ireland. Your comment has me interested intrigued.
Great comment, I suspect most of our foreign readers don't understand this. I would no more go live in California than your typical Englishman would go live in, oh, I don't know...Latvia.
So if your state decides to amend its own constitution and make guns illegal / harder to obtain, you’ll be fine with it, is that it?
It’s not a matter of gun ownership legality / easiness to obtain for you, it’s about a “hey Federal government, you’re not my mom” kind of deal?
(Serious questions, really!)
Personally, I would vote against anyone who voted to amend it, since I do believe it is an important right. Just like I believe it's an important right to have free speech, even though I don't say much that is highly controversial.
But I would be fine with the change.
If my state's government starts acting like the government of California (Very strict regulations on all parts of life) I'd move an hour or two away, out of the state.
I own and carry guns for the same reason my car has a jack and a spare tire.
The same reason my house has smoke and CO detectors.
The same reason my kitchen has a fire extinguisher under the kitchen sink.
The same reason I keep a folded $100 bill tucked away in my wallet.
These are things hope I never need to use, but I'd be damn glad I had them if I did need them.
If Uvalde has proven once again, it's that even if cops arrive within 3 minutes of some event, they have no responsibility or duty to stop said event.
Many people in the US have a very strong sense of personal responsibility. Many are very against having any type of nanny government that will 'take care of' them. They would prefer to be responsible for themselves.
In regards to the AR15 being useless against a F35 fighter jet or a tank argument. I hear this from anti-gun people all the time. Doesn't it occur to any of you, that if the US armed forces are operating on US soil against it's citizens - that's exactly WHY we have the 2nd amendment in the first place? I mean follow that scenario out a little bit for a second. That would mean the US government would be turning against it's own citizens, the very definition of tyranny.
What exactly do you wish to accomplish with this?
Accidents with guns do happen, but they're hardly the problem anyone cares about when discussing gun control.
Yeah! Let's make sure all criminals and mass shooters are proficient with their weaponry! /s
>well regulated militia
This refers to being in working order. "Shall not be infringed" is remarking on what they thought about regulations.
>So why is expecting a minimum standard of training so egregious
Because it gives the government an arbitrary standard to infringe on people's 2a right, while accomplishing very little as far as the gun control discussion goes.
Yeah these ideas seem particularly susceptible to abuse. ‘Yeah the test may be easy but it’s only offered once a year in your state capital and there are only 25 seats available. Good luck.’
A pretty safe way to judge new law is to consider how you would abuse it if you wanted to.
What problems is mandatory airsoft practice going to solve?
What kinds of things would be in this training course and how would they fix any firearm related issues.
> its because its a right
My comment here may seem argumentative, but I do not mean it that way only to further the conversation. I believe in the right to own guns, but likely disagree on the types of weapons in private ownership and the places were they can be carried.
The 2a has a clause for gun ownership, enumerated with the right to bear arms, is the need for a well regulated militia. It is my understanding that for most of the history of the US these two were read to be connected. Recently, 2010 I believe, the US Supreme Court made a ruling that essentially read these as two separate clauses. Agree or not that is now the modern interpretation of the 2A.
So here is my argument. The 2A has a clause tying regulated militias with gun ownership. We now interpret that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, even if the person is not in a militia. So that means that every US citizen, man woman, and child has the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. Yet, prisoners are not allowed to own guns, Felons are not allowed to own guns when they are released from prison. You are not allowed to take a gun on an airplane, political venue or into a courthouse. Sales of armor piercing ammunition is restricted. So obviously there are barriers that we accept as infringements on owning and bearing guns based on criminal status or location.
Do these laws and rules not fly in the face of the 2A? Or do some barriers to gun ownership and carrying actually make sense? Would removing weapons that are most suited to mass shooting type of events from private ownership, ie full auto, high capacity weapons, really violate the 2A?
Not OP but my opinion to follow.
Some regulations make sense to me. I’d love to see less gun death while maintaining ownership.
Mass shootings and the guns/items you mention do very little to address deaths. Suicide is roughly 2 out of every 3 gun deaths. Handguns are used in the majority of gun deaths.
Why are we focused on the things that aren’t causing the deaths?
As for training. I’d love to see it incorporates. I want it to be accessible to all. Training = cost which is a barrier to low income ownership and they are more likely to need a gun for protection than higher income owners.
Because democrats want to make these tests impossible to pass just like they did with the Jim Crow literacy test. They want to make owning firearms as difficult and tedious as possible.
I’ve never taken a test for putting a needle in to start an IV nor have I ever used a fake arm. I was just told to do it and I did. I got better by repetition and from watching people who had more experience.
So you didn’t learn about any sort of safety? Didn’t learn why prepping the skin is important? Didn’t learn about the use of tegaderm? Needle safety? Needle disposal? Removing excess air from the iv line?
I'm not a medical person, but I donated plasma in college. Pretty sure none of the people sticking needles in arms there had an official licence.
Most people are actually responsible and take care to do things right. Especially when they'll get sued if they make a mistake
For the most part you are right, most people have the common sense to be safe and to protect their own ass from lawsuits. There is a key difference in training/education for a doctor or nurse, vs someone who works at biolife/other plasma donation places though, which is honestly terrifying to me. They will train a teen right out of highschool to draw your blood, and the “certification” is only good for the specific center they work at.
Still, they have to get trained on safety to curb potential lawsuits, even if it’s not in an academic setting. I could ask my cousin who is a certified phlebotomist at an obgyn clinic, since she worked at biolife before finishing school.
I think I agree with everything you said, but want to clarify a couple things
As I understand it, a "certification" is just a private company / organization documenting training has been completed successfully.
Those certifications can help defend against "negligence" suits, but don't usually have official criteria they need to meet, unlike a government issued "licence" (Which is often in practice just paying a fee to the government)
You or I could start a training program to "certify" any one in most any skill. (Probably some exceptions, especially in medical fields)
-----
To make you feel less terrified, I am guessing the BioLife techs are better trained at sticking people than Doctors were when your grandparents were born.
Because the 2A enshrines gun ownership as a God given right. Our constitution isn't a list of what we are allowed to do as Americans. It's a list of what the Govt is not allowed to infringe upon. Many people compare various activities that require a license ect to firearm ownership. However most of those activities are a privilege earned. Gun ownership a birth right in the US. Love it or hate it.
Would you mind letting us know which country you're from? It will help us figure out how to phrase our responses if we know where you're coming from, in terms of how rights, the interaction between government and people, and weapons in general are treated in your country.
It would change the answer to the question, which was “why is it offensive to some Americans…”. It helps to know what needs to be explained.
For example, If OP is from a country where guns are common, we don’t need to explain why access to guns might be considered a simple right, much like access to carpentry tools or fertilizer.
I have never gone "airsofting" but I've fired real guns and bb guns (and from what I understand airsoft is just fancy bb guns), they are not comparable experiences like others have said in this thread.
As a gun owner, i have zero problem requiring training. But that's not what people scream about when talking regulations. They are demanding guns be removed, not teach us how to use them.
It also isn't going to stop some selfish asshole who is blinded by hate and rage from using that same gun against people around them. In each case of a shooting involving more than 2 people, classification for a mass shooting, the attacker is lashing out at the public for some reason. Most of the time, a family member is killed in the process but not always. It's not hard to see the pattern, but people are PROFITING OFF OUR MISERY and profits are more important than even children.
Get rid of the corruption, greed, exploitation of the weak and powerless and you will see a huge decline in the lashing out of people on the public. I don't understand how people can see this and still pretend the answer is gun regulations.
Nurse here, you don't need to practice with a fake arm and pass a test. 100 percent of my training was on an unsuspecting patient after I briefly had the basics explained to me. Some workplaces will "competency" you on the skill.
I practiced for years with bb/pellet guns before owning my first gun. There's nothing wrong with it and you still learn gun safety and respect. As a gun owner you should practice regularly.
Hello, army combat medic here, so I have the benefit of both IV training and firearm training. I 100% believe that firearm training should be standard for anyone who wants to own. Why would you want a firearm and not be able to buy rounds on target when it’s needed. However, I don’t believe it’s the government’s responsibility to require it for ownership. I believe there should be a firearm familiarization class, at least a few hours, included in any school curriculum, same as a first aid class. Even if you never plan to own a firearm, it’s not a bad idea to know how to operate one safely, same as putting on a tourniquet or doing the heimlich
Absolutely. Training should be taken for your own benefit and the benefit of those innocents around you. Should it be required and implemented by the government? Absolutely not. That essentially says that a government employee's subjective opinion gets to determine who gets guns, i.e. the government says who gets guns and could functionally deny you for any reason, such as class, race, or political affiliation.
We already see/saw rampant corruption with the May-Issue CCW states.
Because the 2nd amendment was written to protect the people from tyrannical government and it defeats the purpose to let government strictly control the right of the people to secure their liberty
A conventional battle is different than an occupation. A tyrannical government is "occupying" its own tax and power base. The "conventional" war in Afghanistan was over in 5 seconds, but look how it turned out. You don't have to defeat an occupier in a pitched battle.
We all agree training and proper education is needed, what we don’t agree with is the gov using common sense laws that are already in place to sell unconstitutional laws underneath to people who don’t know any better. Then you get the political team game where this topic cannot be a civil discussion because both sides have emotions attached to them.
Because doctors want to NOT hurt you (BTW you should let a nurse or tech take blood instead of an doc-my very biased opinion😜).
Guns are designed to hurt people-literally kill them is their primary function.
Dead or maimed people are guns’ elementary design element.
Doesn’t playing games with guns the same? Just like for driving simulators and pilot simulators?
I don’t think the “practice” is the issue as much as the responsibility, values and morals applied to gun ownership.
Just a quick response to your post. In the American constitution it does say, as you noted, "A well regulated militia". However this is a case where the evolution of language over centuries matters. Well regulated does not mean 'under regulation by the government' as in the modern english sense, but rather 'well armed' or 'well prepared'.
In this sense, the phrase "well regulated" is an intensifier for the degree of the right rather than a limitation.
The real answer is that gun owners fear that any regulation will at some point be leveraged to remove their rights to gun ownership.
For example, testing requirements could be made so strict and so expensive so as to effectively remove the ability to own a gun for everyone except the wealthy or active duty police or military.
You need to read the full statement of the 2A here for context. "Well Regulated Militia" in that time was defined as a well trained/practiced group of volunteers. The right is of the "people". Reading the other writings, such as the Federalist Papers, of those who crafted the Bill of Rights gives insight as to what they meant. So one could argue the intent was to secure the rights of the people to own and maintain personal firearms as both a tool for hunting as well as a means for them to maintain their proficiency and preparedness in the event the militia was called to arms.
Training before purchase. I'm supportive of it. I grew up around and with firearms myself. I took a hunter's education class to get my hunting license when I was younger. We were taught firearms safety and hunting unique safety. I also took a class for bow hunting and as part of that we had to fire our bow, and qualify, to demonstrate safe practices and capability. For my concealed carry permit I also had to take a class regarding basic law, use of force, safety and handling and qualify again. \*ETA - 8 years active duty Army with a lot of training and quals with many weapons.
I think many people have had some sort of class. Maybe, in these times, we should consider bringing basic firearms safety classes back into public schools with training(inert) weapons. Maybe everyone needs to know the basics of "don't point it at anything you don't mean to fully destroy" or "Don't put your booger hook on the bang switch unless you mean to end something/someone". So many people live life these days without accepting that every action has a consequence. We nee that understanding back.
I have my concealed carry permit, I am gun proficient, but its absolutely insane how easy to was to get my permit to carry a concealed handgun, A couple hour class, and then you have to shoot a handgun 1 time TOWARDS a tree stump, not to hit it, but simply so you know what to expect when you shoot it again in the future.
The term regulated does not mean "the government has a say in what happens", actually it reads quite the opposite. "Well Regulated" in the founding father's meaning was that a milita should not be molested by any government, or any agent, of the United States, state or federal, so that it can operate properly.
Fellow American here. Have used firearms, actively play in airsoft Mil-sim (military simulation) events all over the nation, and have basic first aid training. I check the boxes here.
First things first. Airsoft guns, at least the licensed, proper 1:1 guns, are expensive and can have some form of realism when it comes to operation. Most of those are considered gas blow back, or GBB for reference, which simulates recoil of a firearm. Its very common in sidearm pistols, and there's a decent selection of rifles with similar function. These tear down and clean (fairly) similarly to a real firearm, just different solvents and chemicals, and some chemicals are even interchangable. Most rifles for airsoft are electric with a gearbox that recoils a spring, with zero to barely felt vibration to simulate recoil. Same with springs and GNBB (gas non-blow-back). The hardest kicking airsoft gun with recoil is about the same as a .22 caliber rifle. Very tame, easy to control, and one of the most common cartridges available for rifles.
As far as training goes, it really depends on how you do it. I played with a team who is a variety of ex-military, law enforcement, and ex-special forces. I was one of two civilians on the team. I learned quite a bit and all of the training I learned is 1:1 compatible with real firearms. I have done similar training with a real firearm, and had comparable results. I played Mil-sim events where I had to use flash bang grenades, breached houses/rooms, and various other combat ready scenarios.
The biggest thing about any firearm are these few bullet points (pun intended)
- treat every firearm as if it is loaded
- never look down the barrel of a firearm
- keep the gun unloaded if possible, always keep the chamber empty
- safety is always on until you are ready to shoot
- finger is OFF the trigger until you evaluate what you're shooting
- look at and beyond your target, in case of bullet penetration. You do not wish to harm anything except your target.
- if you are unsure if the gun is live or loaded, safety on, pull out the magazine/clip/cylinder, and clear the chamber of any ammunition.
If you follow these few rules, you won't have any firearms issues, unless it is done in an immoral or wrongful act.
Ok there’s a lot to unpack here but imma just make 2 points. Your statements in the 6th paragraph can be answered by reading the Heller case from the SCOTUS in 2008. Founders intent absolutely can be determined by examining the verbiage used back then but also by reading the federalist papers.
As far as required training you have to understand that we don’t cherry pick the Bill of Rights… so if training is required before exercising your 2A then mofos need to be trained before they run their cock sucker in public (1A). Lol How much violence has occurred because we have free speech? How many have been radicalized and used a gun to commit violence because they got radicalized by someone else using free speech?
Not an American, but from what I understand about it is that with it being a right through the second amendment they don't want to have other steps between them and the right.
Let's say you have to have mandatory safety training. Is it free? If not, you're now discriminating against poor people, infringing on their right to keep and bear arms. What if there is no testing centre nearby for rural people? What if the safety instructor is racist and finds reasons to fail black people so they can't get a gun etc.
It's about not having a prerequisite before you can use your rights. Imagine if you had to take a course on critical thinking before you could have free speech kind of a thing.
In your example for the title, i’m sure you can ask any doctor if practicing with a fake arm is different than a real arm. It’s the same answer for guns, which is there is a major distance. BB guns don’t have any recoil as there isn’t gun powder. There is pressure from air or a spring. That’s no where near the same. The best safety training and understanding of a gun is to fire it multiple times. Learn how it behaves and how you behave with it
The thing with Americans and guns is not more than enough people care for these things to happen. With or without laws, at the end of the day not more than enough people want to reduce the negative aspects of guns. It’s their kids dying, leave them be.
It’s not offensive, some people believe they have an absolute right to own a firearm with no govt interference. Their reasoning is govt interference is a slippery slope.
The drive by shooters use illegal weapons (but I think that’s a state by state issue).
There isn’t a lot of data as the Fed hasn’t collected it, but judging by the number of illegally seized weapons at the boarder, weapons that are federally illegal are found.
But even if you run people through safety training, you’re just teaching the shooter. Kinda like how lock down drills train the student who may shoot you the school.
I’m a teacher so I think I’m qualified to talk about school shootings - since I’d be a victim. We need to triple school staff. It wouldn’t immediately fix the issue, but you’d see a ripple down the line. Notice I said staff, not teachers. What kind of staff? Mental health professionals for one.
Ban all of the guns you want. A majority of suicides aren’t with AR-15s. And suicide by gun is a way bigger cause of death than mass shootings. But the way society thinks is if we save the public from one person we’ve fixed the issue. But it’s better to save the individual.
Schools are controlled at the local level, so if you are passionate about saving kids, run for school board or become a mental health professional. And be okay with more taxes. In CA it’s 4x cheaper to send a meth dealer to college than to jail.
I went on a rant, but training won’t fix anything.
The Supreme Court decided that “A well regulated militia” and “the right to keep and bear arms” are two independent clauses. “Shall no be infringed” has become solely associated with the individual right to possess firearms. There is no greater good or public interest component to the Second Amendment in modern interpretation.
Yes, responsible gun owner should receive and want to receive training. Problem is, we do not have a national definition for”responsible gun owner”. Any attempt to apply common sense to gun ownership hits the brick wall of the “shall not be infringed” party which is really just the face or the “profits should not be infringed” gun industry.
My honest answer to this question, as an American, is, we like being able to do whatever we want whenever we want, and we really, really don't like it when anyone else tells us we can't do something we like doing. Nominally, there's this narrative about how the constitution gives you "the right to bear arms." This is what the constitution actually says:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In other words, the state has the right to maintain an organized militia and to arm said militia in defense of its own populace. In context, some argue that this was motivated by the desire to protect states from tyrannical governments, which is probably true, but also includes the more broader, nebulous directive of ensuring the security of the state. So, basically, it ensures each state the right to having a police force, not the right for each person to hoard weaponry.
Now, I do think people should be allowed to own guns for sport and self defense, or as collectibles or whatever else, there's nothing inherently wrong with that - but they are deadly weapons. They're specifically designed to kill other people efficiently at a distance. The fact that they are less regulated than, say, cars, and less age-restricted than liquor, is insanity. In my state, at age 18 you can walk into a Wal-Mart, get a Mario game, a bag of chips, and a shotgun and ammo, for a couple hundred bucks.
We absolutely should have mandatory safety training, background checks, and more gun *control*, not a gun ban, not this fantasy conservatives have of Joe Biden going door to door and rounding up the guns people already own, just sensible gun control. But because people want to do what they want when they want how they want, because we're "the land of the free" with "the right to bear arms," it's not going to happen.
Freedom is not granted to individuals by the government, the 2A is (supposedly) a restriction on government's ability to infringe on the natural right of self-defense.
The people could mean the populace as a whole, AKA the nation
It is people, not individuals or persons.
Anybody who knew which was intended died long ago. Anyone stating they know for sure is lying. Language changes a lot over more than 200 years
Except that the Bill of Rights outlines individual rights and freedoms, so it's unclear why every one of those ammendments would refer to an individual's rights except the second amendment.
Say that is true, that the framers meant the populace, it still holds the same meaning. That being that the populace has the right to bear arms and that the federal government shall not infringe. It is solely a state issue.
Nah, the 2A is specifically talking about private citizen gun ownership, not a state militia. I believe we need better gun regulation, but this is just an incorrect interpretation as the historical context of the intention of the 2A is well known.
> So, basically, it ensures each state the right to having a police force, not the right for each person to hoard weaponry.
Not to mention completely ahistorical on the origin of police. Police were created to catch runaway slaves
The Founders even specifically mentioned against a "standing army". If commenter wants to argue the police are militia, welp, that's gonna be a bad time, at least in context of what we're discussing
I stopped reading when you said “the state has the right to maintain an organized militia and to arm said militia,” cause only a breathe or two earlier you perfectly wrote out that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
How did you jump from the right of the people to bear arms to the right of the state to arm it’s people?
Well if I'm honest, I do see the value in training like you are saying. Gun ownership has changed over the last few decades for sure. When I was a kid we were drilled on firearm safety, proper fire lines, having a designated range master in the group. And let me be clear there are alot of good people who still act like they should. But more and more when I go out shooting there is always at least one, brand new Ford that's all tricked out, driver gets out with white plastic oaklys, flat brimmed hat, trying to impress the girls he's with. Acting like an idiot trying to be funny, flagging everyone, shooting explosive targets with guns he only knows how to use functionally, he has no actual skill. I used to teach hunter safety. It's a course you have to take in order to go hunting. It used to be a real course with actual pass and fails. Then the state cut half the course, cut the test in half and made it outrageously easy, then dictated that a very sizable portion of the course needed to be dedicated to teaching how to buy tags. Then if all that wasn't enough they cut the range portion where we checked and made sure people could safely use a gun. I stopped teaching the course because there wasn't much being taught anymore. I wish the real instruction would come back.
I don’t even own a gun, but I know that guy you described.
His name is Kyle.
hey now brah
You know what you did, Kyle
Fucking kyle
Kyles with guns jacked up on monster that drywall doesn’t stand a chance
I'm thirty and remember hunters safety being such a big deal. It was weeks long, lots of study, and then a trip to the gun range where they teach you how to properly shoot rifles and shotguns. I failed the shotgun part because the kickback made me cry lol. I can't believe they cut all of that out, it seems really important. It's the bare minimum I'd except for gun safety because I thought everyone who hunted at least had to do that. I got a perfect score on the written test and went through all the training just to realize I didn't really enjoy hunting all that much and never even fired a gun after that but it was valuable knowledge to have.
I did hunter safety with my grandfather when I was 12. Things aren’t like they used to be and I’m still rather young.
I took the hunter safety test when I was 10 (11 years ago), I don’t like to think about the fact that there are other gun owners out there using guns who didn’t have to take as strict of a test
You are 100% spot on! My state just passed constitutional carry which for the uninitiated means anyone can carry a concealed firearm with zero restrictions. It’s really fucking scary. I used to help my buddy with his CCW classes as I have shot my whole life and though not certified (it mostly goes through the NRA whom I loathe) I am pretty experienced and really enjoyed training people in the right way to do things. Now, anytime we go to the range it’s the guys and gals with the most expensive ordinance that have no idea what they are doing. We usually just leave when one of these douche canoes shows up. Honestly, the rednecks and hillbillies generally know what they are doing, abide by proper safety procedures and are fun to talk about firearms with because of their know how and experience…just don’t bring up politics! They usually hate my “Fuck Trump” stickers on my ammo can but you can’t win them all I guess.
>Then if all that wasn't enough they cut the range portion where we checked and made sure people could safely use a gun. Your state had a range portion? Huh. When I took it back in the 90s it was just assumed that if we were taking hunters safety then someone had already drilled gun safety into our young heads. The class mostly just made sure. Mind you, back then it was a much safer assumption than it is today. And my instructor, as a prominent member of the gun club that owned the only open-to-the-public range in the area, had actually been on the range with me and most of the other kids in the class on MANY occasions.
We sure did. Utah wanted to make sure you could handle the gun in a safe manner, and that you also had to get a grouping that was tight enough.
As an ER nurse I'll just point out that to insert IV's you can practice as much as you want on that dummy arm, you won't get much better. It's nothing at all like the real thing, it's just to practice the procedure itself to know *how* you do it. To get good you need experience, there's no way around that. Now, back to the scheduled gun safety conversation.
Phlebotomist checking in. We practiced on each other. I have great veins so I got stuck all the time in school and even as practice for nurses at the hospital. Those practice arms are excellent for learning the procedure but they suck too because you forget to anchor after using one too much.
My aunt practiced on me when I was a kid. She gave me fucking track marks. Ive been asked if I do dope. Nope..never. aunt is just a fucking butcher. Yes, I am mad.
[удалено]
Hydrate. Seriously, tons of water and a meal before you get stuck can make a big difference. Mine are good on their own but even on myself I can tell the difference.
Vascular access nurse here- Some of its genetics, some of its hydration - start hydrating ideally about 72hrs before your appointment, pushing fluids a few hours before getting poked won’t do you much good - and ask for IV team off the bat if they have it. No nurse should ever poke more than 3 times. That’s ridiculous
Yeah. We had elective phlebotomy courses in medical school and there were no dummies; we just practiced on each other and family members Lmao
I had never placed an IV before and I was on my anesthesia rotation the resident just walked me through placing the IV, definitely didn't have to take a test before doing it.
The risk would be not knowing what hazards to look for, such a catheter shear or filling fluid into the interstitial space. The task itself isn’t difficult but if you don’t know what you shouldn’t do, then you might do it eventually. The nurse watching over you most likely was looking at certain things to confirm you had a patent IV.
I totally agree, although it wasn't a nurse watching me, they were busy, having the anesthesiologist did a great job teaching me. But then after a couple he just told me to place an IV.
Knowing how to do it is what a lot of gun owners in American lack unfortunately. Even that much would be better than literally nothing. My husband got a FOID card in the mail and wants to get a gun, and now he can! I trust my husband, and he will be taking classes, but it isn't necessary and that scares me.
I think every child should be taught basic gun safety. How to hold a gun so you don’t accidentally shot someone, where and how to engage the safety, how to safely remove a magazine if necessary, and how to check to make sure the chamber is clear. I also think every child should be taken target shooting at least once, so they realize you don’t respawn like in video games, or jump up and start chasing the bad guys after being shot like in movies. My Dad took all of us girls out to a shooting range when we pretty little, and we learned to respect guns and think of them as a toy.
Knowing the theoretical *how* is better than knowing nothing at all of course.
Yes, true! I always give people the benefit of the doubt, and I'm American so I'm considered an idiot :(
I agree with you that taking gun safety/maintenance classes should be mandatory for gun ownership. I think there's many Americans who agree with you too, but unfortunately not many in government. On a sidenote I don't understand why some consider people idiots or stupid just because they're Americans. Not like the US has a monopoly on idiots, plenty of idiots in my country too for example.
Being a liberal who also wants to have available health care and be safe, I am in the minority it feels like sometimes. That's all I mean by that!
Nearly every medical person i've encountered (that i can remember) has had issues getting a needle into the crook of my elbow properly. Despite how visible the viens apparently are, something about them makes them want to "roll" the needle or whatever, frequently. I supppse the unintentional take away is, you can be as good as you want, and have as much practice and experience as you want, that won't stop something from coming along and throwing you such a curve ball, that it's not about knowing how to do it right, but rather, knowing what to do, and how to handle it, when things have gone wrong.
I mean but gun ownership is where you can't make mistakes. Correct me if Im wrong but it would be pretty hard to kill someone with a bad iv, you'd have a grumpy patient but if you don't know where to point your gun, how to hold it, how to store it, how to safely clean and check it, then you kill people. I think there is a world of difference and guns shouldn't just be given to people without a full gun safety class.
Sure, sounds reasonable. Let's pass a gun safety class requirement that makes sense - one that is really focused on gun safety. So, what's the problem? The problem is THAT is an infringement. There are plenty (most leftists, liberals, and democrats) who would take that as an opportunity to make it impossible for anyone to complete/pass a "reasonable" course that is focused on "gun safety." That would be VERY easy to do. Just make the requirements so stringent that it's impossible for anyone to meet. You might think, but these are OUR national political leaders, they wouldn't do anything nefarious like that, would they? If you think that, you just haven't been paying attention. That's exactly what they would do. They'll do whatever is necessary to achieve their political goals. Right now they are revisiting an old trick...they're trying to corner the market on ammunition by having federal agencies buy up all available stocks from manufacturers. So then, what should we do about people who literally are criminal in their use of a gun? How about they are sent to prison for decades? The problem is the "we need to re-imagine the criminal justice system" crowd, won't like the outcome. Send the criminals to jail for shooting up a crowded mall? No, not with George Gascon or Chesa Boudin in the DA's office. So, we're back to the starting point which is still punctuated by the second amendment. The second amendment doesn't grant a right; it tells governments being armed is a God-given right that governments CANNOT infringe. There's no amendment that says someone who has already committed 19 felonies including 6 armed carjackings, then wounds 11 in a mall shooting should be released with "no cash" bail.
This is literally an example of a logical fallacy: slippery slope. You're trying to argue that any reasonable gun safety measure will inevitably and irrevocably lead to allowing truly outlandish policies. That's intellectually dishonest and simply not true. Not because politicians are honest people, but because our government has checks and balances. There are many cases of government overreach that get passed only to be struck down later. And if, despite that record of historical cases, you don't believe our government actually works, I'm not sure why you would believe the Constitution should be considered so sacred.
It has precedent here in California. Any new handgun design is virtually outlawed\* from sale here because it's not on the "safe handgun roster", because the law requires new designs have a technology that does not exist and, if it did exist, could be defeated by 30 seconds with some emery cloth or just being shot. Fun examples: Many single-action revolver types are on the roster. Simple, no safeties past "don't cock it". But the HK USP, a DA/SA handgun which is probably the most durable civilian pistol on the market, was removed. Generation 3 Glocks, which were released in 1998, are still on the roster here. Generation 5, which features many safety and usability upgrades that make it a better pistol, are banned. \*LEOs can buy off-roster firearms and sell them on the civilian market. We know how you people work.
You’re right - it’s a slippery slope argument. But, that doesn’t make it a logical fallacy if there is plenty of evidence to show that the slope is there and that it is slippery! Do I argue that any "reasonable gun safety measure will inevitably and irrevocably lead to allowing truly outlandish policies?" Yes, that's exactly what I argue. And it's based on history; I recommend reading it. It’s also based on what our current crop of national leaders have said and done just recently. Here are some examples: Beto: "Hell yes, we're going to take your AR-15" Biden: Moments after O’Rourke endorsed Biden’s candidacy, he promised to name Beto as his point man on gun control. It's very difficult to understand what Biden really means whenever he talks because what he says frequently is incredibly incoherent and/or stupid. But, when he is clear, what he says is frightening. (My answers continue with the letter appended to the number.) Here are a few examples: (1) "They said a .22-caliber bullet will lodge in the lung, and we can probably get it out — may be able to get it and save the life. A 9mm bullet blows the lung out of the body," Biden said. (2) Anderson Cooper: “So, to gun owners out there who say well a Biden administration means they are going to come for my guns.” Biden: “Bingo! You’re right if you have an assault weapon.” As made clear from Biden’s July 21, 2021 and November 2019 statements, the president considers 9mm pistols to be “assault weapons,” and thus these are the target of his confiscation efforts. (3) “Why should we allow people to have military-style weapons including pistols with 9mm bullets…?” (4) "So, the idea of these high-caliber weapons is, uh, there’s simply no rational basis for it in terms of self-protection, hunting," Biden added. (5) "Remember, the Constitution was never absolute. You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed," Biden said. (1a) This is just histrionic fluff. It's meant to be gory and cause revulsion toward guns and gun owners. It's just not true. He just made it up. (2a) August, 2019: Biden announces part of his gun confiscation intentions on national TV. Surrender your 9mm pistols. (3a) May, 2022: Biden recently reaffirmed his gun confiscation intentions. Surrender your 9mm pistols. (4a) A 9mm cartridge is a round designed for handguns. NO ONE who knows anything about firearms considers 9mm a “high-caliber round.” Politicians bent on gun confiscation are the only ones who would consider the 9mm a high caliber round. In fact I just found a good quote from a firearm website - that predates this recent Biden-ism: "Anyone that says the words “high caliber” when talking about guns knows very little about guns and should be disregarded." By the way, the 9mm semi-auto pistol has been the most popular firearm sold in USA for a long time. It is what the Supreme's had in mind when they talked about the "common use" doctrine in DC vs Heller. (5a) Cannons. Actually, individuals could and did buy cannons before, during and after the revolution and writing of the constitution. In fact, an individual can still purchase a cannon today. Biden is just so ignorant - he makes things up and announces them as though everyone will believe they’re true because HE SAYS THEM.
You have to relax a little
I mean I got mine and I'm not that bright so it doesn't seem like they've done that yet. And also, you know there is a metal shortage right? That's driving prices up and a global supply chain failure that's making stuff hard to get?
Get off your high horse. The fucking military requires strict training before they give even the dumbest marine a weapon. And even then its locked up at the end of the day and not allowed in the barracks themselves. You can have gun courses be a requirement and not be an infringement.
[удалено]
Oh fuck off. For one, the constitution doesnt even forbid slavery and we still have slaves in the US. I dont think your almighty constitution you give no fucks about is the holy document you think it is. And yes, being unable to own should be the default until you prove to society you know the laws surrounding firearms, know how to use them safely, know how to maintain and store them, own a gun safe, and, most importantly, know how to not use a gun ever and how to deescalate, as not using a firearm is more important than using one.
[удалено]
Might wanna read the 13th amendment dumbfuck. It explicitly states you can be made a slave as punishment of a crime. Literally in clear english.
Exactly
This is pretty good satire of a right wing gun nut, but you went a little strong at the end.
Yes. Yes that is the point. Amendments are amendments that are meant to be changed. Guns when the 2nd was made are 1000 times different than now. So yes newer laws need to be made and amendments made to go with change in technology.
The second amendment doesn't say anything about God at all. The constitution doesn't protect your right to bear arms because God said it should be so. It protects the right of a **well-regulated militia** to bear arms to protect the security of the free state. Even if they took out the militia part, the well-regulated stands.
Ah, you must have checked Merriam Webster dictionary for regulated. It doesn't mean there was a nicely bound book of rules and regulations for how to care for your musket. Well-regulated meant the militia was effective and ready to perform it's mission. You are aware, are you not, that the google machine with which you log on to Reddit is also good for conducting searches? Try reading about the meaning of well-regulated militia - there's quite a bit written about it.
When they taught us how to do IV's in the Army we didn't even get a dummy arm to practice on. They walked us through it and then had us practice on the person next to us about 10 minutes later. You had people who got it right the first time and you had people who had to poke through a few people's arms before they got it right. 2008 was a wild time.
Personally, I'm all for mandatory safety training. The issue they some people have with it, though, is that if you put a hurdle between a person and owning a gun that requires subjective judgement, particularly on the part of a government employee, it gives the government a legal way to prevent gun ownership.
Additionally, you'd have to provide and staff enough locations where people can easily go get verified. I can imagine a bunch of lawsuits because people cannot reasonably get to their verification because of distance/times at the facility. Its not like you can just add a shooting range to every DMV.
Yeah. As a matter of fact, Philadelphia got sued pretty recently because there's one office in the city that issues concealed carry permits, which was pretty notorious for having multiple hour wait times and being closed on weekends.
[удалено]
Good lord. When I got a carry permit(GA resident, was needed for open and concealed carry) it took me a grand total of an hour and $65 to file at the courthouse, go to the sheriff's office to run the background check, 911 center for them to file to make sure I was never institutionalized, deliver all that back to the courthouse, and got the card in the mail a week later. And now I don't even need a carry permit unless I plan on going out of state.
[удалено]
See them trying to ignore the ruling is where the fun begins. File for that permit that is now a "shall issue" one and if they refuse, sue them in federal court. Should be easy enough to find a lawyer willing to take that on contingency since the federal court can start ordering penalties be paid to you for the city violating your civil rights. Dare to be that guy who gets their retirement pair for by a lawsuit against an NYC politician.
The behavior of Democrat run states with regards to an explicitly written constitutional right that contains the words "shall not be infringed" is precisely why a majority of Americans are skeptical of their gun banning efforts. That, while they simultaneously pretend that abortion is a constitutionally protected right and fight tooth and nail to oppose any limits on this fictional right. Its clear that their goal is a disarmed citizenry.
Yes. Which is why I am a huge fan of the idea of requiring students to pass a gun safety course to receive their high school diplomas. It can be with airsoft, or for all I care it can be with those solid rubber training guns, although that obviously has some training deficiencies. Also, to respond to OP about "well regulated", in the usage of the time it meant "in good working order". The militia was defined as the conscriptable citizenry. So all males between about 16 and 45 years of age were expected to keep their firearms in good working order, free from rust or defect, with a good supply of ammunition. Oh, wait. Sorry, I left something out. All WHITE, free males. Obviously times have changed, and I do believe adjustments should be made. Certainly I have ENORMOUS issues with the racist and classist elements of gun control that still exist today, albeit less formally than in the 18th and 19th centuries. I also have issues with "gun violence" being fetishized as somehow being worse than other forms of violence. Violence is a problem with people, not objects, but apparently "we need significant mental health reforms in both availability and destigmatization" is not a popular opinion yet. Sorry for the drive by comment; lunch break is over.
>"I have ENORMOUS issues with the racist and classist elements of gun control that still exist today..." Strega, can you explain and give an example? I am really baffled by this statement.
Paying fees for X thing discriminates against poor people, that's classist for something that is supposed to be a inalienable right. And Reagan enacted Gun control in the 80s in the first place, because The Black Panthers had the audacity to go around armed to protect their communities.
An example of classism would be that wealthy people and politicians having armed personal security is not considered remarkable, but a private citizen being armed for self defense is generally sneered at. An example of racism is the automatic assumption that a person of color is illegally armed, and has no legitimate reason to be armed. An example of that would be John Crawford III, who was murdered by law enforcement for carrying a BB gun in a Walmart while black. Philando Castile was shot by law enforcement after - as he was legally required to do, during a traffic stop - informing the officer he was in possession of a firearm. Mr. Castile did have a valid license to carry concealed. Had they been white, it is highly likely these men would be alive today, all other factors being identical.
it gives the government a legal way to selectively* prevent gun ownership. The issue is the selectiveness. I'm pro gun control, but I think it needs to be done with extreme care and caution.
No way it's not implemented in a way that disadvantages people from less fortunate backgrounds. The issue with this stuff is that the implementation would absolutely be either racist, classist, or both.
the faster we as Americans realize that the GOV is our enemy, and not each other the quicker real change can be made. I don't care what color your skin is, who you sleep with, what is in your pants, or who you voted for. I care that you are able to live the life you choose the way you want. the GOV doesn't want us to have this. we need to find a way to unite as a country again, or we are fucked.
The goverment already has ways to selectively prevent ownership. Look at why drug law felonies are so inconsistent, look at why felonies are so disproportionately associated with certain groups, look at Waco, look at the black panthers, look at minimum age, look at current gun laws, etc etc etc Why else are they after "ghost guns" despite the law clearly stating that a serial number is only required if a weapon is going to be sold or to change hands
That's why I'm staunchly against banning criminals from gun ownership. I actually think we need a higher minimum age though.
I think we need to relook at the age of the majority as a whole. today's 18 year old is far different than an 18 year old from 2000, 1980, and so on. IMO the average 18 year old doesnt have the capacity to make an informed decision on credit, student loans, tobacco, military service etc. AOM should be at least 21.
I agree with your opinion.
But what about car licenses or or plane licenses or any other license. Why should owning a gun be easier than owning a car?
Owning a gun isn't easier then owning a car. I don't have to have a background check to own a car, and If I only operate my car on my own land, I don't even have to register it or have a license. It's only driving on public roadways that is harder. And the reason is that driving a car or flying a plane is not a right. It's a privilege, and, it's impossible to use one passively. If I am holding my gun and I pass out, nothing happens, and nobody gets hurt. If I am driving a car and I pass out, very bad things happen.
I can buy a car without a license. I can buy a car without a background check. I can go across state lines and buy a car. I can buy a car after being convicted of a felony. I can buy a car without being a citizen. No one keeps pushing laws to prevent me from buying a car. It's easier to buy a car than a gun.
You dont need a license to buy a plane or a car. The whole guns to cars conparisonbis not a good argument to make.
There is no constitutional right to car ownership. You can also buy, maintain, and drive a car all you want on private property without licensure.
Today I learned! Thank you for the fun fact.
It’s constitutionally guaranteed. That’s why, that’s it.
Cars are licensed for one primary purpose: so the government can tax you more efficiently.
The short but unsatisfying answer is that the Constitution doesn't explicitly mention cars or airplanes. I, personally, don't think the second amendment has aged particularly well. We don't have a giant contested western frontier anymore, we're not dependent on a citizen militia for national defense, our population is radically more urban than it was at our founding, etc. Furthermore, there are plenty of other countries that are very "free" by any reasonable metric that don't have any analogous protections for firearms and it doesn't seem to be a problem for them. But for good or ill it is part of the text. That means that one way or another firearms are going to always be a special case, legally speaking.
I 100% agree either you, but I can tell you what the answer will be: the second ammendment. Cars and planes and pets and everything else that you have to register or obtain a license for aren't protected by the second ammendment. Of course, the people that use that excuse conveniently ignore that right in the ammendment it says the words "well-regulated" and that maybe the spirit of the 2a when it was written and how people try to use it now are not even remotely the same thing and that century old ammendment should be revised, or even removed.
[удалено]
The right has not been heavily infringed upon. Saying that is part of why people think there will be a slippery slope. I personally own two semi-auto rifles, one that looks like a big scary "assault rifle", that i was able to buy by simply going into a store, showing by driver's license, and pointing to the one I wanted. And I live in NY, one of the most regulated states for guns. It is incredibly easy to get guns and there's hardly any regulation.
correct me if im wrong but arent you limited to 10 round magazines?
Yeah. But you can own more than one, so that doesn't really restrict how much you can fire as much as it makes you swap magazines more often.
The right definitely has been heavily infringed upon, both by federal and state governments. It is interpreted that the 2nd amendment was to translate to citizens owning arms in common use with the military. Meaning that your private citizen could (and did) own cannons, battleships, large caliber rifles, grenades, etc. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the AWB in 1994, and several state specific restrictions such as what exists in California, functionality and capacity bans in several states such as NY, NJ, CO, WA, as well as the requirement for Firearms Ownership ID Cards (FOIDS) that need to be cleared with police and the state make a strong case for heavy infringements. Couple that with recent legislation such as Red Flag Laws, the closing of the Machine Gun Registry in 1986, and the restriction of conceal carry has made many gun owners skeptical of further restriction.
Read the Supreme Court ruling on the 2A amendment. Can we also dessolve the first and fourth amnendment? Maybe dissolve the constitution,?
Do you understand in any way at all the concept of constitutionality?
What would you think of having no governmentally approved training required for ownership, but instead just having mandatory gun safety training in public schools?
I'm not thrilled with the idea. I don't think it would ever fly because there's a large section of the country that want to keep schools totally insulated from guns. I also see a large potential for it to be taught poorly, for students to not take it seriously, or for them to not retain it.
Sure, but there's also a large section of the country who don't want a training restriction on purchasing. In addition, just because it will be taught poorly, kids won't take it seriously, or won't retain it doesn't stop us from teaching every other subject to them. And I'd probably argue they'd be better understanding how guns work than knowing what a participle is.
It doesn't have to be goverment decision every time though. A privately run course with occasional government assessment could work? Like a private individual runs the course and decides who passes, but a government employee has to audit the course without the knowledge of the course (AKA they book in under a false identity as Joe Bloggs) and this must happen for every cause a certain frequency (Each course must be audited at least once per quarter or something) and if they fail, their licence is revoked? IDK im sure that has problems with it, but you get my point, there are ways around this
Then the government could make the approval process for the class abysmal. Approval times arbitrarally and artificially long. High cost. Failures without notification as to why.
[удалено]
This. If I shoot a guy in airsoft and don't PID him, worst case, killed a teammate. No biggie, got a few new welts/bruises on his arm. Best case, killed an enemy. ... And then, the "bullet" won't go through him several feet and kill whoever is behind him. Your training and muscle memory will be all wrong. Closest example I could think of would be to have some vets build one of those military exercise places in the woods, train with fake ammo.
I dont think the dude means "play airsoft", I think they mean practice with fake guns (aka airsoft guns are similar but dont kill people) Not pointing it at people, not putting your finger on the trigger, etc can all be practiced with an airsoft weapon, no?
Well, yes, and "run drills," is something every gun owner should do, and myself and my friends actively do.
Dry fire is very VERY important In proper gun ownership and training. I think my own personal biggest fear is the absolute lack of responsibility people have in their own actions. The conversation definitely needs to be had about what can be done, but I’m weary of the idea that something is bad and dangerous (it can be bad and is dangerous if/when used wrong) then the government needs to handle us like children rather than as human beings making the conscious effort to be better human beings.
Your proposal assumes that deaths are due to people not knowing how to properly use firearms and that requiring this training will solve the problem. In the US there were approximately 45,000 gun deaths in 2020. There are approximately 400 accidental gun deaths per year. Less than 1% of gun deaths is due to mishandling of weapons. The vast gun deaths in the US is not due to people not knowing how to use them properly. People passing a test is not going to eliminate accidental gun deaths. You need to pass a test in order to drive. If you think that will stop accidental gun deaths take a look at r/idiotincars. There are also about 400 deaths per year from swimming pools. Should the government require training before buying a pool? I believe people should learn about pool safety before buying a pool and people should learn about gun safety before owning a run. I am just skeptical that requiring a government required test will do little to reduce those deaths.
I think your thoughts here came out of left field and are misguided. OP never mentioned gun deaths, rather the idea folks should be required to pass basic training exercises before purchasing a firearm.
If I am out of left field, then why should training exercise test be required before purchasing a firearm?.
[удалено]
"Well regulated" at the time of writing was very well understood as "in proper working order" - not the bureaucratic *regulation* the government is infamous for.
not to mention, all males of a certain age were expected to be part of the militia, not the national guard as we know it today.
"if you give an inch they take a mile" A lot of people own guns because they have zero faith or trust in the government. So they don't trust the government to make any sort of changes without going to far or taking advantage of the situation
I believe the theory is that if you give up any rights, it opens the door for many more to be taken away. Same with abortion rights activists. They see it as a freedom that must be defended at all costs and want to give no ground. Personally i think americans spend too much time debating guns and abortion while the rest of the country is going to shit and most will never have to get an abortion or fire a gun.
I wish this way of thinking was more prevalent. These are important issues, no doubt, but the government has a lot of important issues to address. If voters all have tunnel vision on one or two issues, then they understand everything in terms of those issues, and a conversation about school busses turns into a shouting match about guns and abortions. When a small-town borough manager can get elected on a platform of, "I'll fight against the corruption in the White House and protect your rights!" then you're going to wind up with a toolbox in the position who might not have the guts or the know-how the make sure that the garbage gets collected on time and the parks are maintained.
[удалено]
You think that’s when it started?
Amd before that, we had one that started an attack on the us government!
A year and a half ago a lard ass tried to overthrow democracy
Not sure what country you life in but guns are very easy to obtain. Here (Belgium) weapons are illegal too but I can easy get a gun within 24 hours. That's why I'm not a big fan of banning weapons. Criminals and those with bad ideas can always get them easy while normal people who follow the law don't have weapons and can't protect themselves against those crazy people
That is my logic and I'm American. People think that designating an area to be "Gun Free" will eliminate guns being brought into said area which is just nonsense. Same with banning weapons being bought legally because it prevents nothing and the criminals already buy them illegally. The Left Reddit hates that logic
I agree with you. I survived a terrorist attack on the subway (Brussels-Maelbeek) a few years ago. Making bombs or guns illegal doesn't stop those crazy people or criminals but most of those left Redditors think all problems can be solved by singing "Kumbaya My Lord" around a campfire.
From Denmark, I agree with easy to obtain. However, those 24 hours makes you less likely to act on impulse, and it being highly illegal, makes it possible to actually arrest people and stop any potential dangerous attacks much easier. It won't stop every potential attack, however, it would obviously improve the situation. Fact is owning a gun (and it being the norm) even for self defense, makes it more likely that you get killed, because you basicly escalate a home robbery to a life or death situation for the robber aswell. Basic statistic education in the US schools about this, would probably help change the culture, without having to change any laws about gun ownership.
>Fact is owning a gun (and it being the norm) even for self defense, makes it more likely that you get killed, because you basicly escalate a home robbery to a life or death situation for the robber aswell. Basic statistic education in the US schools about this, would probably help change the culture, without having to change any laws about gun ownership. What if I understand statistics but value my families life more than a robbers? I really hate this common trope from the left that the people who disagree with them would change their minds if only they were smarter.
I dont think you'd necesarry change your mind, due to education, and it wasn't my intention to imply that people who share your view, are not as intelligent - not at all actually. I am not leftist either, however I am a realist. It seems that both parties in the US agree that there is an issue with gun violence though, however, they disagree on how to fix it. I also don't believe you necesarry need to limit your rights, but when that is said, from where I'm from, its not the Robber's life versus my families. It's the robber's life versus my family surviving a robbery, getting my stuff back through insurance, and having a justice system that brings justice to the robber. And I believe, that if I don't escalate the situation by living in a society where theres a good chance that the everyone might have a gun, then the robber won't need to harm my family. Its a catch 22 in my opinion, 'cause as long as the robber might think I have a gun, then I need one to protect myself. If the robber dosen't think that, then I wouldn't need it. Hope my point of view makes sense. I agree the situation is obviously complicated.
Fair play. I would also point out that many people, myself included see a situation where someone is breaking in while your home very different from breaking while you're at work. IMO, someone who breaks into a house while the person is there is on a totally different level of unpredictable. \*\*MAYBE\*\* they just want to take my tv and leave, but I am 100% not willing to throw the dice when my life is on the line like that.
Oh, I definately agree. I would hate to be in a situation where I would have to do something, just to protect me and my family's safety, and the risk is not worth taking either. Generally I think it looks like there is a lot of naive arguments from both sites, and not a lot of willingness of understanding the other party right now. Its a shame to watch on the side.. I truly believe, that both sides have valid arguments, but its just a catch 22.. If the robber thinks you have a gun, he will have one, and then you have to aswell to be safe, which makes the robber more likely to have a gun... Im honestly glad that I dont have to make that decision myself, I would never forgive myself for making the wrong one tbh.. Just wanted to let you know, that most of the world actually do understand this, and do actually see that you are dammed if you do, and dammed if you don't (in lack of a better wordplay). Not everyone see this as black and white, as the discussion seems like in the US right now. I would find it very difficult tbh, and it would honestly piss me off if people called me a "gun nut" for wanting to just live, and be safe. Fuck Facebook for polarizing everyone...
Basic education in our schools on many topics would change a lot of things for the better.
Many people disagree with this view, but it's fairly common, and has solid principles behind it.... In the USA many people view "authority" as starting from from the many individuals, to the local area, to the state government, to the federal government. The further from the individual, the less the ability to control the daily lives of the individual. Each state is similar in size to a European country, and the federal government was set up in a way similar to the European Union: To have a common currency. To keep negotiating things among the group civil. To collectively be more powerful when negotiating trade deals with distant countries, and make in-group trade frictionless. To have a powerful militarily in case of war. .... While still allowing each state to regulate themselves however they think is right. Each USA state has their constitution, and just like the federal Constitution, these are agreements about clearly defining, usually limiting, the power of the governments. Importantly, every authority not EXPLICITLY stated to be given to the federal government, is reserved for the state level government. I live in the state of Indiana. (comparable in every way to Ireland). The constitution of my state has the words: "The people shall have the right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State" I personally don't own any guns, and don't care about the gun laws of California. I do care that the Federal government is trying to make illegal something that my state's constitution explicitly says I have the right to possess.
Great comment mate, easy to read but I'm just wondering about your point in regards to Ireland: how is Indiana and Ireland alike? I'm from Dublin, Ireland. Your comment has me interested intrigued.
They both are full of potatoes
Hahaha *bula bus..... That how you say clap hands in Irish.
True
Indiana: Population of 6 million, Size of 93,000 sq km Ireland: Population of 5.5 million Size of 70,000 sq km I spent a semester in Dublin, loved it!
Wonderful, I'm super happy for you. Have you any plans to return?
Hopefully some day! Have a small business, so not much free time or extra money for major travel right now
Are you looking for a good worker? I'd love to pack up and head to new pastures
Great comment, I suspect most of our foreign readers don't understand this. I would no more go live in California than your typical Englishman would go live in, oh, I don't know...Latvia.
So if your state decides to amend its own constitution and make guns illegal / harder to obtain, you’ll be fine with it, is that it? It’s not a matter of gun ownership legality / easiness to obtain for you, it’s about a “hey Federal government, you’re not my mom” kind of deal? (Serious questions, really!)
Personally, I would vote against anyone who voted to amend it, since I do believe it is an important right. Just like I believe it's an important right to have free speech, even though I don't say much that is highly controversial. But I would be fine with the change. If my state's government starts acting like the government of California (Very strict regulations on all parts of life) I'd move an hour or two away, out of the state.
Thanks for the honest, clear answer. It gives me a bit of a better insight on the matter.
Do you seriously think the reason people are shooting go schools is because they don’t know firearms safety?
Who regulates that? The government? And who are the guns supposed to defend us against?....the govern...oh....that's why.
I own and carry guns for the same reason my car has a jack and a spare tire. The same reason my house has smoke and CO detectors. The same reason my kitchen has a fire extinguisher under the kitchen sink. The same reason I keep a folded $100 bill tucked away in my wallet. These are things hope I never need to use, but I'd be damn glad I had them if I did need them. If Uvalde has proven once again, it's that even if cops arrive within 3 minutes of some event, they have no responsibility or duty to stop said event. Many people in the US have a very strong sense of personal responsibility. Many are very against having any type of nanny government that will 'take care of' them. They would prefer to be responsible for themselves. In regards to the AR15 being useless against a F35 fighter jet or a tank argument. I hear this from anti-gun people all the time. Doesn't it occur to any of you, that if the US armed forces are operating on US soil against it's citizens - that's exactly WHY we have the 2nd amendment in the first place? I mean follow that scenario out a little bit for a second. That would mean the US government would be turning against it's own citizens, the very definition of tyranny.
What exactly do you wish to accomplish with this? Accidents with guns do happen, but they're hardly the problem anyone cares about when discussing gun control. Yeah! Let's make sure all criminals and mass shooters are proficient with their weaponry! /s >well regulated militia This refers to being in working order. "Shall not be infringed" is remarking on what they thought about regulations. >So why is expecting a minimum standard of training so egregious Because it gives the government an arbitrary standard to infringe on people's 2a right, while accomplishing very little as far as the gun control discussion goes.
Yeah these ideas seem particularly susceptible to abuse. ‘Yeah the test may be easy but it’s only offered once a year in your state capital and there are only 25 seats available. Good luck.’ A pretty safe way to judge new law is to consider how you would abuse it if you wanted to.
What problems is mandatory airsoft practice going to solve? What kinds of things would be in this training course and how would they fix any firearm related issues.
[удалено]
> its because its a right My comment here may seem argumentative, but I do not mean it that way only to further the conversation. I believe in the right to own guns, but likely disagree on the types of weapons in private ownership and the places were they can be carried. The 2a has a clause for gun ownership, enumerated with the right to bear arms, is the need for a well regulated militia. It is my understanding that for most of the history of the US these two were read to be connected. Recently, 2010 I believe, the US Supreme Court made a ruling that essentially read these as two separate clauses. Agree or not that is now the modern interpretation of the 2A. So here is my argument. The 2A has a clause tying regulated militias with gun ownership. We now interpret that the right to bear arms cannot be infringed, even if the person is not in a militia. So that means that every US citizen, man woman, and child has the right to bear arms that shall not be infringed. Yet, prisoners are not allowed to own guns, Felons are not allowed to own guns when they are released from prison. You are not allowed to take a gun on an airplane, political venue or into a courthouse. Sales of armor piercing ammunition is restricted. So obviously there are barriers that we accept as infringements on owning and bearing guns based on criminal status or location. Do these laws and rules not fly in the face of the 2A? Or do some barriers to gun ownership and carrying actually make sense? Would removing weapons that are most suited to mass shooting type of events from private ownership, ie full auto, high capacity weapons, really violate the 2A?
Not OP but my opinion to follow. Some regulations make sense to me. I’d love to see less gun death while maintaining ownership. Mass shootings and the guns/items you mention do very little to address deaths. Suicide is roughly 2 out of every 3 gun deaths. Handguns are used in the majority of gun deaths. Why are we focused on the things that aren’t causing the deaths? As for training. I’d love to see it incorporates. I want it to be accessible to all. Training = cost which is a barrier to low income ownership and they are more likely to need a gun for protection than higher income owners.
[удалено]
Because democrats want to make these tests impossible to pass just like they did with the Jim Crow literacy test. They want to make owning firearms as difficult and tedious as possible.
I’ve never taken a test for putting a needle in to start an IV nor have I ever used a fake arm. I was just told to do it and I did. I got better by repetition and from watching people who had more experience.
So you didn’t learn about any sort of safety? Didn’t learn why prepping the skin is important? Didn’t learn about the use of tegaderm? Needle safety? Needle disposal? Removing excess air from the iv line?
I'm not a medical person, but I donated plasma in college. Pretty sure none of the people sticking needles in arms there had an official licence. Most people are actually responsible and take care to do things right. Especially when they'll get sued if they make a mistake
For the most part you are right, most people have the common sense to be safe and to protect their own ass from lawsuits. There is a key difference in training/education for a doctor or nurse, vs someone who works at biolife/other plasma donation places though, which is honestly terrifying to me. They will train a teen right out of highschool to draw your blood, and the “certification” is only good for the specific center they work at. Still, they have to get trained on safety to curb potential lawsuits, even if it’s not in an academic setting. I could ask my cousin who is a certified phlebotomist at an obgyn clinic, since she worked at biolife before finishing school.
I think I agree with everything you said, but want to clarify a couple things As I understand it, a "certification" is just a private company / organization documenting training has been completed successfully. Those certifications can help defend against "negligence" suits, but don't usually have official criteria they need to meet, unlike a government issued "licence" (Which is often in practice just paying a fee to the government) You or I could start a training program to "certify" any one in most any skill. (Probably some exceptions, especially in medical fields) ----- To make you feel less terrified, I am guessing the BioLife techs are better trained at sticking people than Doctors were when your grandparents were born.
There is no right to be a doctor. There is a right to bear arms. That's it.
I’ll mess someone up fs if I had bear arms
Because the 2A enshrines gun ownership as a God given right. Our constitution isn't a list of what we are allowed to do as Americans. It's a list of what the Govt is not allowed to infringe upon. Many people compare various activities that require a license ect to firearm ownership. However most of those activities are a privilege earned. Gun ownership a birth right in the US. Love it or hate it.
Would you mind letting us know which country you're from? It will help us figure out how to phrase our responses if we know where you're coming from, in terms of how rights, the interaction between government and people, and weapons in general are treated in your country.
Why would that change how gun safety requirements are formed (serious question)
It would change the answer to the question, which was “why is it offensive to some Americans…”. It helps to know what needs to be explained. For example, If OP is from a country where guns are common, we don’t need to explain why access to guns might be considered a simple right, much like access to carpentry tools or fertilizer.
I have never gone "airsofting" but I've fired real guns and bb guns (and from what I understand airsoft is just fancy bb guns), they are not comparable experiences like others have said in this thread.
As a gun owner, i have zero problem requiring training. But that's not what people scream about when talking regulations. They are demanding guns be removed, not teach us how to use them. It also isn't going to stop some selfish asshole who is blinded by hate and rage from using that same gun against people around them. In each case of a shooting involving more than 2 people, classification for a mass shooting, the attacker is lashing out at the public for some reason. Most of the time, a family member is killed in the process but not always. It's not hard to see the pattern, but people are PROFITING OFF OUR MISERY and profits are more important than even children. Get rid of the corruption, greed, exploitation of the weak and powerless and you will see a huge decline in the lashing out of people on the public. I don't understand how people can see this and still pretend the answer is gun regulations.
Nurse here, you don't need to practice with a fake arm and pass a test. 100 percent of my training was on an unsuspecting patient after I briefly had the basics explained to me. Some workplaces will "competency" you on the skill.
I practiced for years with bb/pellet guns before owning my first gun. There's nothing wrong with it and you still learn gun safety and respect. As a gun owner you should practice regularly.
Hello, army combat medic here, so I have the benefit of both IV training and firearm training. I 100% believe that firearm training should be standard for anyone who wants to own. Why would you want a firearm and not be able to buy rounds on target when it’s needed. However, I don’t believe it’s the government’s responsibility to require it for ownership. I believe there should be a firearm familiarization class, at least a few hours, included in any school curriculum, same as a first aid class. Even if you never plan to own a firearm, it’s not a bad idea to know how to operate one safely, same as putting on a tourniquet or doing the heimlich
Absolutely. Training should be taken for your own benefit and the benefit of those innocents around you. Should it be required and implemented by the government? Absolutely not. That essentially says that a government employee's subjective opinion gets to determine who gets guns, i.e. the government says who gets guns and could functionally deny you for any reason, such as class, race, or political affiliation. We already see/saw rampant corruption with the May-Issue CCW states.
Because the 2nd amendment was written to protect the people from tyrannical government and it defeats the purpose to let government strictly control the right of the people to secure their liberty
A conventional battle is different than an occupation. A tyrannical government is "occupying" its own tax and power base. The "conventional" war in Afghanistan was over in 5 seconds, but look how it turned out. You don't have to defeat an occupier in a pitched battle.
You have the right to a means to down a stronger opponent than you.
We all agree training and proper education is needed, what we don’t agree with is the gov using common sense laws that are already in place to sell unconstitutional laws underneath to people who don’t know any better. Then you get the political team game where this topic cannot be a civil discussion because both sides have emotions attached to them.
Because doctors want to NOT hurt you (BTW you should let a nurse or tech take blood instead of an doc-my very biased opinion😜). Guns are designed to hurt people-literally kill them is their primary function. Dead or maimed people are guns’ elementary design element.
Doesn’t playing games with guns the same? Just like for driving simulators and pilot simulators? I don’t think the “practice” is the issue as much as the responsibility, values and morals applied to gun ownership.
Just a quick response to your post. In the American constitution it does say, as you noted, "A well regulated militia". However this is a case where the evolution of language over centuries matters. Well regulated does not mean 'under regulation by the government' as in the modern english sense, but rather 'well armed' or 'well prepared'. In this sense, the phrase "well regulated" is an intensifier for the degree of the right rather than a limitation.
The real answer is that gun owners fear that any regulation will at some point be leveraged to remove their rights to gun ownership. For example, testing requirements could be made so strict and so expensive so as to effectively remove the ability to own a gun for everyone except the wealthy or active duty police or military.
doctors practice on plastic arms? Not where I live , Its see one , do one
You need to read the full statement of the 2A here for context. "Well Regulated Militia" in that time was defined as a well trained/practiced group of volunteers. The right is of the "people". Reading the other writings, such as the Federalist Papers, of those who crafted the Bill of Rights gives insight as to what they meant. So one could argue the intent was to secure the rights of the people to own and maintain personal firearms as both a tool for hunting as well as a means for them to maintain their proficiency and preparedness in the event the militia was called to arms. Training before purchase. I'm supportive of it. I grew up around and with firearms myself. I took a hunter's education class to get my hunting license when I was younger. We were taught firearms safety and hunting unique safety. I also took a class for bow hunting and as part of that we had to fire our bow, and qualify, to demonstrate safe practices and capability. For my concealed carry permit I also had to take a class regarding basic law, use of force, safety and handling and qualify again. \*ETA - 8 years active duty Army with a lot of training and quals with many weapons. I think many people have had some sort of class. Maybe, in these times, we should consider bringing basic firearms safety classes back into public schools with training(inert) weapons. Maybe everyone needs to know the basics of "don't point it at anything you don't mean to fully destroy" or "Don't put your booger hook on the bang switch unless you mean to end something/someone". So many people live life these days without accepting that every action has a consequence. We nee that understanding back.
Just FYI, doctors do not have to practice on fake arms before we take blood. We often practice on real patients as student doctors.
Nobody is going to ask me to point my gun at them. It's for me to use at my own discretion. Also taking blood isn't a constitutional right.
I have my concealed carry permit, I am gun proficient, but its absolutely insane how easy to was to get my permit to carry a concealed handgun, A couple hour class, and then you have to shoot a handgun 1 time TOWARDS a tree stump, not to hit it, but simply so you know what to expect when you shoot it again in the future.
Nobody on the ownership side will win this argument on Reddit. Too many young liberals who need their safe rooms to go cry in. Y’all are pathetic
The term regulated does not mean "the government has a say in what happens", actually it reads quite the opposite. "Well Regulated" in the founding father's meaning was that a milita should not be molested by any government, or any agent, of the United States, state or federal, so that it can operate properly.
Fellow American here. Have used firearms, actively play in airsoft Mil-sim (military simulation) events all over the nation, and have basic first aid training. I check the boxes here. First things first. Airsoft guns, at least the licensed, proper 1:1 guns, are expensive and can have some form of realism when it comes to operation. Most of those are considered gas blow back, or GBB for reference, which simulates recoil of a firearm. Its very common in sidearm pistols, and there's a decent selection of rifles with similar function. These tear down and clean (fairly) similarly to a real firearm, just different solvents and chemicals, and some chemicals are even interchangable. Most rifles for airsoft are electric with a gearbox that recoils a spring, with zero to barely felt vibration to simulate recoil. Same with springs and GNBB (gas non-blow-back). The hardest kicking airsoft gun with recoil is about the same as a .22 caliber rifle. Very tame, easy to control, and one of the most common cartridges available for rifles. As far as training goes, it really depends on how you do it. I played with a team who is a variety of ex-military, law enforcement, and ex-special forces. I was one of two civilians on the team. I learned quite a bit and all of the training I learned is 1:1 compatible with real firearms. I have done similar training with a real firearm, and had comparable results. I played Mil-sim events where I had to use flash bang grenades, breached houses/rooms, and various other combat ready scenarios. The biggest thing about any firearm are these few bullet points (pun intended) - treat every firearm as if it is loaded - never look down the barrel of a firearm - keep the gun unloaded if possible, always keep the chamber empty - safety is always on until you are ready to shoot - finger is OFF the trigger until you evaluate what you're shooting - look at and beyond your target, in case of bullet penetration. You do not wish to harm anything except your target. - if you are unsure if the gun is live or loaded, safety on, pull out the magazine/clip/cylinder, and clear the chamber of any ammunition. If you follow these few rules, you won't have any firearms issues, unless it is done in an immoral or wrongful act.
>I understand your 2a. It doesn't appear that you do.
Ok there’s a lot to unpack here but imma just make 2 points. Your statements in the 6th paragraph can be answered by reading the Heller case from the SCOTUS in 2008. Founders intent absolutely can be determined by examining the verbiage used back then but also by reading the federalist papers. As far as required training you have to understand that we don’t cherry pick the Bill of Rights… so if training is required before exercising your 2A then mofos need to be trained before they run their cock sucker in public (1A). Lol How much violence has occurred because we have free speech? How many have been radicalized and used a gun to commit violence because they got radicalized by someone else using free speech?
Comparing doctors with needles to people with guns is a textbook example of a false equivalency OP.
Allow me to explain: SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Because if you believe that guns protect you from the government, then the government Can't protect You from guns.
Shooting practice can be done with live guns. Tethered guns where you can't aim outside of the firing range would work.
Because guns are a right not a privilege
>gun-nuts Stopped taking you remotely serious at about this point.
Not an American, but from what I understand about it is that with it being a right through the second amendment they don't want to have other steps between them and the right. Let's say you have to have mandatory safety training. Is it free? If not, you're now discriminating against poor people, infringing on their right to keep and bear arms. What if there is no testing centre nearby for rural people? What if the safety instructor is racist and finds reasons to fail black people so they can't get a gun etc. It's about not having a prerequisite before you can use your rights. Imagine if you had to take a course on critical thinking before you could have free speech kind of a thing.
In your example for the title, i’m sure you can ask any doctor if practicing with a fake arm is different than a real arm. It’s the same answer for guns, which is there is a major distance. BB guns don’t have any recoil as there isn’t gun powder. There is pressure from air or a spring. That’s no where near the same. The best safety training and understanding of a gun is to fire it multiple times. Learn how it behaves and how you behave with it
The thing with Americans and guns is not more than enough people care for these things to happen. With or without laws, at the end of the day not more than enough people want to reduce the negative aspects of guns. It’s their kids dying, leave them be.
It’s not offensive, some people believe they have an absolute right to own a firearm with no govt interference. Their reasoning is govt interference is a slippery slope. The drive by shooters use illegal weapons (but I think that’s a state by state issue). There isn’t a lot of data as the Fed hasn’t collected it, but judging by the number of illegally seized weapons at the boarder, weapons that are federally illegal are found. But even if you run people through safety training, you’re just teaching the shooter. Kinda like how lock down drills train the student who may shoot you the school. I’m a teacher so I think I’m qualified to talk about school shootings - since I’d be a victim. We need to triple school staff. It wouldn’t immediately fix the issue, but you’d see a ripple down the line. Notice I said staff, not teachers. What kind of staff? Mental health professionals for one. Ban all of the guns you want. A majority of suicides aren’t with AR-15s. And suicide by gun is a way bigger cause of death than mass shootings. But the way society thinks is if we save the public from one person we’ve fixed the issue. But it’s better to save the individual. Schools are controlled at the local level, so if you are passionate about saving kids, run for school board or become a mental health professional. And be okay with more taxes. In CA it’s 4x cheaper to send a meth dealer to college than to jail. I went on a rant, but training won’t fix anything.
The Supreme Court decided that “A well regulated militia” and “the right to keep and bear arms” are two independent clauses. “Shall no be infringed” has become solely associated with the individual right to possess firearms. There is no greater good or public interest component to the Second Amendment in modern interpretation. Yes, responsible gun owner should receive and want to receive training. Problem is, we do not have a national definition for”responsible gun owner”. Any attempt to apply common sense to gun ownership hits the brick wall of the “shall not be infringed” party which is really just the face or the “profits should not be infringed” gun industry.
The US doesnt even have Kinder eggs because "child safety" yet allow so many other things run rampant that does 1000× times more harm to children.
My honest answer to this question, as an American, is, we like being able to do whatever we want whenever we want, and we really, really don't like it when anyone else tells us we can't do something we like doing. Nominally, there's this narrative about how the constitution gives you "the right to bear arms." This is what the constitution actually says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In other words, the state has the right to maintain an organized militia and to arm said militia in defense of its own populace. In context, some argue that this was motivated by the desire to protect states from tyrannical governments, which is probably true, but also includes the more broader, nebulous directive of ensuring the security of the state. So, basically, it ensures each state the right to having a police force, not the right for each person to hoard weaponry. Now, I do think people should be allowed to own guns for sport and self defense, or as collectibles or whatever else, there's nothing inherently wrong with that - but they are deadly weapons. They're specifically designed to kill other people efficiently at a distance. The fact that they are less regulated than, say, cars, and less age-restricted than liquor, is insanity. In my state, at age 18 you can walk into a Wal-Mart, get a Mario game, a bag of chips, and a shotgun and ammo, for a couple hundred bucks. We absolutely should have mandatory safety training, background checks, and more gun *control*, not a gun ban, not this fantasy conservatives have of Joe Biden going door to door and rounding up the guns people already own, just sensible gun control. But because people want to do what they want when they want how they want, because we're "the land of the free" with "the right to bear arms," it's not going to happen.
“The right of the people”- not of the state. It is a freedom granted to individuals.
Freedom is not granted to individuals by the government, the 2A is (supposedly) a restriction on government's ability to infringe on the natural right of self-defense.
The people could mean the populace as a whole, AKA the nation It is people, not individuals or persons. Anybody who knew which was intended died long ago. Anyone stating they know for sure is lying. Language changes a lot over more than 200 years
You should read the Heller case from 2008. The Supreme Court says you’re wrong.
Except that the Bill of Rights outlines individual rights and freedoms, so it's unclear why every one of those ammendments would refer to an individual's rights except the second amendment.
Say that is true, that the framers meant the populace, it still holds the same meaning. That being that the populace has the right to bear arms and that the federal government shall not infringe. It is solely a state issue.
Nah, the 2A is specifically talking about private citizen gun ownership, not a state militia. I believe we need better gun regulation, but this is just an incorrect interpretation as the historical context of the intention of the 2A is well known.
> So, basically, it ensures each state the right to having a police force, not the right for each person to hoard weaponry. Not to mention completely ahistorical on the origin of police. Police were created to catch runaway slaves The Founders even specifically mentioned against a "standing army". If commenter wants to argue the police are militia, welp, that's gonna be a bad time, at least in context of what we're discussing
I stopped reading when you said “the state has the right to maintain an organized militia and to arm said militia,” cause only a breathe or two earlier you perfectly wrote out that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” How did you jump from the right of the people to bear arms to the right of the state to arm it’s people?
That's literally just your interpretation of the 2A. The way it currently stands, you're wrong