• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Does personal tragedy affect views on gun ownership?

devildavid said:
I would prefer that he campaigns for gun safety and laws that make gun safety training mandatory. Owning a gun, like owning car comes with responsibilities in how you use it. Saying "accidents happen" is not an acceptable reaction to deaths caused by accidents. The root cause of accidents should be addressed and steps taken to see if they can be prevented in the future.
Click to expand...

Having worked in a shooting range I have personally seen the how poorly some people shoot I can understand the idea of "mandatory" training. The problem with making training a requirement you are treating a right as if it was a privilege. One of the first things I mention in the firearms class I teach is "You are responsible for 100% of the rounds to put down range!" If you are forced to used your firearm for self defense, and one of those bullets misses the bad guy and strike a car, or house, damaging personal property you are responsible for those damages. The same goes for injuring or killing a bystander! So it is ideal to get trained so you don't miss your target, as well as have $500K - $1Million in liability insurance!
 
TurtleDude said:
since criminals cannot legally buy or own guns how is the unconstitutional mandatory training requirements going to be imposed on them?
Click to expand...

There are already fully constitutional laws in place in regard to gun ownership which includes having a license as there is for driving a car or hunting or fishing or practicing law or medicine. Requiring safety training is in no way unconstitutional. Criminals are supposed to follow the same laws as any others in regard to these laws. That they don't follow them does not mean there is anything wrong with the law.
 
Rucker61 said:
Who decides what is sufficient mandatory training, and who approves the instructors on the list of qualified trainers?
Click to expand...

The same ones who decide who is old enough, mentally fit, or has a clean criminal record. We require that people train and take a driving test to get a drivers license. I think we can figure out something for gun ownership.
 
devildavid said:
There are already fully constitutional laws in place in regard to gun ownership which includes having a license as there is for driving a car or hunting or fishing or practicing law or medicine. Requiring safety training is in no way unconstitutional. Criminals are supposed to follow the same laws as any others in regard to these laws. That they don't follow them does not mean there is anything wrong with the law.
Click to expand...


what part of the US constitution authorizes the federal government to make mandatory training a requirement.

do you understand the concept of the fifth amendment and laws that would require a criminal to incriminate himself are constitutionally void ab initio. In other words, BM members push for laws they know, or should know, cannot even be imposed on criminals: such efforts prove that the motivations of the BM members is not to control or impede criminals but to harass and hassle honest gun owners
 
devildavid said:
The same ones who decide who is old enough, mentally fit, or has a clean criminal record. We require that people train and take a driving test to get a drivers license. I think we can figure out something for gun ownership.
Click to expand...

a stupid analogy. I will give you a couple minutes to figure out why that is a stupid analogy. if not then I will correct your errors.
 
Absentglare said:
He killed his son with his gun. I don't think anything about a man who unapologetically kills his own son with his hobby is "great".
Click to expand...

Unapologetically killed his own son? Did you even read the article? It was a tragic accident. Good ****ing grief. :doh
 
If we are going to have mandatory training it should be ethics training for the news. It causes far more damage than guns do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
countryboy said:
Unapologetically killed his own son? Did you even read the article? It was a tragic accident. Good ****ing grief. :doh
Click to expand...

Yeah, they're delusional:

“He was just trying to have fun with his boy,” she said. “He was safe. He was careful. He was always careful. You can’t prepare for something burning hot to fall down your shirt.”
Click to expand...

He shot his son, his son died from the gun shot, and then he said his son wasn't killed with his gun. Going crazy is tragic. Too bad he didn't have any insight into the possibility of preventing the death of his 14 year old son, turns out his hobby was a meaningful threat.
 
Absentglare said:
Yeah, they're delusional:



He shot his son, his son died from the gun shot, and then he said his son wasn't killed with his gun. Going crazy is tragic. Too bad he didn't have any insight into the possibility of preventing the death of his 14 year old son, turns out his hobby was a meaningful threat.
Click to expand...

The only thing delusional in your post, is your own words. Holy crap.
 
Absentglare said:
Yeah, they're delusional:



He shot his son, his son died from the gun shot, and then he said his son wasn't killed with his gun. Going crazy is tragic. Too bad he didn't have any insight into the possibility of preventing the death of his 14 year old son, turns out his hobby was a meaningful threat.
Click to expand...

How many children are killed in auto accidents every year? Given the number we see, aren't those foreseeable deaths?
 
TurtleDude said:
what part of the US constitution authorizes the federal government to make mandatory training a requirement.

do you understand the concept of the fifth amendment and laws that would require a criminal to incriminate himself are constitutionally void ab initio. In other words, BM members push for laws they know, or should know, cannot even be imposed on criminals: such efforts prove that the motivations of the BM members is not to control or impede criminals but to harass and hassle honest gun owners
Click to expand...

There is nothing at all unconstitutional about passing a gun safety training law. Texas has a long list of laws regulating gun ownership and usage, which includes training and safety.

https://www.dps.texas.gov/InternetForms/Forms/CHL-16.pdf

GC §411.188. HANDGUN PROFICIENCY REQUIREMENT.
(a) The director by rule shall establish minimum standards for handgun
proficiency and shall develop a course to teach handgun proficiency and
examinations to measure handgun proficiency.
Click to expand...
....

The classroom instruction part of the course must include not less than four hours and
not more than six hours of instruction on:
(1) the laws that relate to weapons and to the use of deadly force;
(2) handgun use and safety, including use of restraint holsters and methods to
ensure the secure carrying of openly carried handguns;
(3) nonviolent dispute resolution; and
(4) proper storage practices for handguns with an emphasis on storage
practices that eliminate the possibility of accidental injury to a child
Click to expand...
 
Rucker61 said:
How many children are killed in auto accidents every year? Given the number we see, aren't those foreseeable deaths?
Click to expand...

Yes they are, and driving safety should be emphasized more than it is. Also, tough measures should be taken against those with multiple arrests for traffic violations. Too many people have drivers licenses who have no business having them due to their poor driving records and repeated traffic violations.
 
TurtleDude said:
a stupid analogy. I will give you a couple minutes to figure out why that is a stupid analogy. if not then I will correct your errors.
Click to expand...

It is not an analogy. Laws are made by lawmakers about many things, which includes gun usage and safety. That is who is going to decide: lawmakers who are put in place by the people to pass laws to protect society from harm.
 
devildavid said:
There is nothing at all unconstitutional about passing a gun safety training law. Texas has a long list of laws regulating gun ownership and usage, which includes training and safety.

https://www.dps.texas.gov/InternetForms/Forms/CHL-16.pdf

....
Click to expand...

you are intermingling state vs federal powers. Guess what, training requirements are a waste of time since the people most likely to use guns improperly won't take them, its one of those things that sound good to people who are completely clueless about guns and those who use them and refuse to actually learn the subject.
 
devildavid said:
It is not an analogy. Laws are made by lawmakers about many things, which includes gun usage and safety. That is who is going to decide: lawmakers who are put in place by the people to pass laws to protect society from harm.
Click to expand...

we need to start really hammering law makers who pass stupid crap just to pander to stupid and ignorant people. btw your Texas law is about carrying weapons in public not owning them. big difference. btw I have no problems with valid and object training requirements for those who carry in public.
 
Rucker61 said:
Is this training required to own a handgun?
Click to expand...

he apparently doesn't understand what the law pertains to. its carrying in public which is a far different issue than keeping and possessing and obtaining a firearm for your home
 
Rucker61 said:
Is this training required to own a handgun?
Click to expand...

Everything under the law is required to both own and use a handgun. Not much point in owning a gun if you can't legally use it.
 
TurtleDude said:
we need to start really hammering law makers who pass stupid crap just to pander to stupid and ignorant people. btw your Texas law is about carrying weapons in public not owning them. big difference. btw I have no problems with valid and object training requirements for those who carry in public.
Click to expand...

Owning a gun is not the same as using it. The law pertains to how guns are used. Which really is the only point of owning a gun. You can own many things that have laws regulating their use, such as motor vehicles.
 
TurtleDude said:
you are intermingling state vs federal powers. Guess what, training requirements are a waste of time since the people most likely to use guns improperly won't take them, its one of those things that sound good to people who are completely clueless about guns and those who use them and refuse to actually learn the subject.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that states could pass unconstitutional laws. As far as giving up on training because some people will ignore it, that is self-defeating. Laws are based on the assumption that most people desire to be good, law abiding citizens and the law is put in place for everyone's benefit. Just like all our laws that regulate behavior. We are a nation of laws, not of men. Those who fail to realize that will have to pay the penalty for ignoring it. You don't have to some special understanding of guns to understand why laws regulating their use are put into place.
 
devildavid said:
I wasn't aware that states could pass unconstitutional laws.
Click to expand...

It happens all the time. That why state laws prohibiting gay marriage aren't on the books anymore.

As far as giving up on training because some people will ignore it, that is self-defeating.
Click to expand...

I'm not giving up on it. I love firearms training. Mandatory firearms training for exercising the right to keep and bear arms violates the Constitution, won't affect criminals and would have no effect on homicides and suicides. The terms for such a law would be subject to abuse by anti-gun lawmakers. The only reason to have training is as an obstacle to legal gun ownership.

Laws are based on the assumption that most people desire to be good, law abiding citizens and the law is put in place for everyone's benefit. Just like all our laws that regulate behavior. We are a nation of laws, not of men. Those who fail to realize that will have to pay the penalty for ignoring it.
Click to expand...

See "Brady Act Enforcement 2010" and tell me that there's a penalty for failing to obey the law.

You don't have to some special understanding of guns to understand why laws regulating their use are put into place.
Click to expand...

No, but you do have to have an understanding of guns, the law, legal precedence and statistics to understand why some laws are unconstitutional, ineffective, unenforceable and not necessary.
 
devildavid said:
I wasn't aware that states could pass unconstitutional laws. As far as giving up on training because some people will ignore it, that is self-defeating. Laws are based on the assumption that most people desire to be good, law abiding citizens and the law is put in place for everyone's benefit. Just like all our laws that regulate behavior. We are a nation of laws, not of men. Those who fail to realize that will have to pay the penalty for ignoring it. You don't have to some special understanding of guns to understand why laws regulating their use are put into place.
Click to expand...

when the people who most push for mandatory training are bannerrhoids, its honest to note what the real goal is
 
devildavid said:
Owning a gun is not the same as using it. The law pertains to how guns are used. Which really is the only point of owning a gun. You can own many things that have laws regulating their use, such as motor vehicles.
Click to expand...

and when a training requirement interferes with a constitutional right, the requirement is UNCONSTITUTIONAL
 
Rucker61 said:
It happens all the time. That why state laws prohibiting gay marriage aren't on the books anymore.



I'm not giving up on it. I love firearms training. Mandatory firearms training for exercising the right to keep and bear arms violates the Constitution, won't affect criminals and would have no effect on homicides and suicides. The terms for such a law would be subject to abuse by anti-gun lawmakers. The only reason to have training is as an obstacle to legal gun ownership.



See "Brady Act Enforcement 2010" and tell me that there's a penalty for failing to obey the law.



No, but you do have to have an understanding of guns, the law, legal precedence and statistics to understand why some laws are unconstitutional, ineffective, unenforceable and not necessary.
Click to expand...

Gay marriage is not specifically guaranteed by the Constitution. State laws against it were just recently interpreted by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. State gun laws can be challenged as well. Until they are, they are considered constitutional under the law. That's how it works. State regulation of guns and their use is legitimate until challenged. The federal government will not step in and overrule state laws.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom